^  PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


Shelf. 


BT  365  .T39  1880  c.l 
Taylor,  William  M.  1829- 

1895. 
The  Gospel  miracles  in  their] 

relation  to  Christ  and     ! 


'^m: 


If 


THE  GOSPEL  MIRACLES 


IN    THEIR    RELATION 


CHRIST     AND     CHRISTIANITY. 


BY 

WM.    M,    TAYLOR,    D.D., 

Pastor  of  the  Broadway  Tabernacle  Churchy  New  York. 


NEW  YORK : 
ANSON    D.    F.    RANDOLPH    &    COMPANY, 

900  BROADWAY,    COR,    20th    STREET. 


Copyright,  1880,  by 
Anson  D.  F.  Randolph  &  Company. 


NEW   YORK: 

Edward  O.  Jenkins,  Printer, 
20  North  William  St. 


TO 


THE    MEMBERS    OF    THE    FACULTY 

OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 

WHO 

HONORED   ME  WITH  THE  APPOINTMENT  TO  DELIVER  THESE   LECTURES 

ON  THE  L.  P.  STONE  FOUNDATION,  AND  AT  WHOSE  REQUEST 

THEY   ARE   NOW    PUBLISHED, 

IS    AFFECTIONATELY    INSCRIBED. 
April  15,  1880.  Wm.  M.  Taylor. 


LIITCI 
hcCUGIlboU  \l 

C  O  NT'f'^''^. 

LECTURE    I. 
The  Nature  and  Possibility  of  Miracles,   ,       .       i 

LECTURE    IL 
The  Supernatural  in  Christ, 27 

LECTURE    in. 
The  Credibility  of  Miracles, 59 

LECTURE    IV. 
The  Testimony  in  Behalf  of  Miracles,         .       ,     99 

LECTURE    V. 
The  Mythical  Theory, 137 

LECTURE    VI. 

The  Evidential  Value  of  the  Miracles,      .       .    171 

LECTURE    VII. 

The  Spiritual  Significance  of  the  Miracles,     .    205 

Appendix,  ...  231 

(v) 


THE    NATURE 
AND    POSSIBILITY    OF    MIRACLES. 


THE  NATURE  AND   POSSIBILITY  OF   MIRACLES. 

Acts  ii.  22:  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among  you 
by  miracles  and  wonders  ;  signs,  which  God  did  by  him,  in  the 
midst  of  you. 

In  entering  on  the  subject  which  is  to  occupy  our 
attention  throughout  these  lectures,  it  is  needful  that 
we  should  have  a  clear  idea  of  the  place  which  an  in- 
quiry into  the  credibility  and  evidential  value  of 
miracles  has  in  the  investigation  of  the  nature  and 
origin  of  Christianity.  These  are  not  the  first  topics 
that  challenge  consideration  in  the  examination  of 
the  Scriptures ;  nor  are  they  dependent  for  their 
right  adjustment  on  our  acceptance  of  the  doctrine 
that  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles  were  divinely 
inspired.  It  is  often  alleged,  however,  that  the  de- 
fenders of  the  faith  are  guilty  of  disingenuousness, 
inasmuch  as,  at  one  time,  they  use  the  inspiration 
and  authority  of  Scripture  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
the  reality  of  the  miracles ;  while  at  another,  they 
employ  the  reaHty  of  the  miracles  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  the  inspired  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  a  little  attention  to  the  logical  order  in  which 
the  different  subjects  connected  with  the  Bible  pre- 
sent themselves  for  examination,  will  convince  any 


4        NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

one  that  such  an  accusation  is  unjust.  For,  taking 
up  these  ancient  books,  just  as  we  would  any  other 
productions,  the  first  question  which  arises  is,  by 
whom  were  they  written  ?  the  next,  have  they  come 
to  us  as  their  authors  wrote  them  ?  the  next,  at 
what  date  were  they  composed  ?  Then  having  sat- 
isfactorily disposed  of  these  matters,  we  are  met 
with  the  inquiry,  are  they  credible  records  of  actual 
occurrences?  and  it  is  at  this  point  that  the  whole 
debate  over  the  miracles  arises.  On  the  one  hand, 
it  is  alleged  that  the  very  presence  of  the  record  of 
such  things  in  the  gospels  gives  a  legendary  charac- 
ter to  them,  and  imposes  a  heavy  burden  on  their 
credibility,  or  relegates  them  to  the  category  of 
myths;  and,  on  the  other,  it  is  contended  that, 
though  they  be  works  out  of  the  usual  experi- 
ence of  men,  their  performance  by  such  an  one  as 
Jesus  is  described  to  have  been,  is  perfectly  in  har- 
mony with  everything  else  that  is  said  about  Him,  is 
well  established  by  testimony  of  the  weightiest  sort, 
and  does  not  at  all  derogate  from  the  general  trust- 
worthiness of  the  narrative.  Here,  then,  an  arrest  is 
put  upon  our  progress,  and  we  have  to  settle  whether 
these  miracles  were  genuine  or  not.  But,  supposing 
we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  genuine, 
we  are  then  in  a  position  to  go  forward  and  ask  far- 
ther :  What  do  these  supernatural  works  say  regard- 
ing the  person  and  mission  of  Him  by  whom  they 


NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.         5 

were  performed  ?  In  other  words,  when  we  are  deal- 
ing with  the  credibility  of  the  evangelic  narratives, 
we  have  to  answer  the  question  how  far  that  is 
affected  by  the  accounts  of  miracles  which  they  con- 
tain ;  and  then,  the  credibility  established,  when  we 
come  to  deal  with  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of 
the  Gospel,  we  have  to  ask  what  the  miracles  say 
concerning  Him  who  wrought  them,  and  the  system 
in  connection  with  which  they  were  performed? 
Thus  there  is  no  vicious  circle,  but  a  strictly  logical 
method  is  pursued,  and  each  subject  of  investigation 
follows  naturally  on  that  by  which  it  is  preceded. 

It  will  not  be  expected  that  I  should  go  back  over 
all  those  matters  of  criticism,  genuineness,  and  au- 
thenticity to  which  I  have  referred.  I  must  be 
allowed,  for  the  purposes  of  these  discourses,  to 
assume  as  already  proved,  that  the  gospels  were 
written  before  the  end  of  the  first  century,  that  they 
are  the  productions  of  the  men  whose  names  they 
bear,  and  that  they  are  in  our  hands  substantially  as 
they  were  when  they  came  from  those  of  their 
authors. 

Now,  on  a  perusal  of  these  four  biographies  it  will 
be  at  once  apparent,  that  the  miracles  which  they 
record  can  not  be  eliminated  from  the  history,  with- 
out virtually  destroying  its  character.  From  begin- 
ning to  end  the  evangelical  narrative  is  homogeneous  ; 
and   nothing   can    be    taken    from    it    without    not 


6         NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

merely  injuring,  but  also  overthrowing  all  the  rest. 
Its  several  parts  fit  into  each  other  like  the  stones  of 
an  arch,  and  if  one  be  removed,  all  the  others  must 
ultimately  fall.     The  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  is  felt 
by  every  reader  to  correspond  with  His  resurrection 
from  the  dead  and  ascension  into  glory ;  while  all  that 
lies  between   is  recognized  as  being  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  both.    The  supernatural — whether  rightly 
or  wrongly  claimed  for  it — is  its  differentiating  qual- 
ity ;  and  if  that  be  taken  from  it,  nothing  really  dis- 
tinctive or  peculiar  remains.     Even  as  a  literary  pro- 
duction it  could  not  survive  the  removal  from  it  of  its 
miraculous  incidents,  for  these  are  so  inwrought  into 
its  fabric,  that  any  attempt  to  cut  them  out  would 
destroy  it  as  effectually  as  the  removal  of  its  pictorial 
patterns  from  a  piece  of  tapestry  would  ruin  the  entire 
production.     The  miracles  are  the  weft,  and  the  dis- 
courses and  other  incidents  are  the  woof  of  a  history 
whose  unity  is  constituted  by  the  interweaving  of  the 
two — and  the  removal  of  either  is  the  destruction  of 
the  web.     Separate  threads  might  remain,  but  you 
could  have  no  cloth.     If  you  abstract  the  miracles  you 
might  still  be  able  to  keep  some  parts  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  but  you  would  have  overturned  the 
foundation  on  which  that  constantly  recurring,  ''  I  say 
unto  you,"  rests  ;  and  with  that  would  go  the  very 
element  of  authority  in  it  which  so  impressed  those 
who  heard  it  at  the  first.     You  might  preserve  also 


NA  TURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.         y 

some  of  the  parables ;  but  even  these  taken  away  from 
the  setting  in  which  they  stand  and  from  the  interpre- 
tation given  to  them  in  many  cases  by  the  divine  per- 
sonaHty  and  history  of  the  speaker,  would  lose  most 
of  their  significance  and  power.  You  might  retain, 
too,  a  figure  that  you  still  called  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
but  he  would  not  be  the  Jesus  whom  the  Evangelists 
have  portrayed,  for  he  would  have  lost  his  moral 
greatness  and  his  distinctive  individuality,  and  would 
be  felt  to  be  no  more  to  us  than  one  of  the  old 
Grecian  sages.  Try  it  for  yourselves.  Take  the  gos- 
pel by  Matthew,  erase  from  it  everything  of  the 
supernatural,  and  what  will  remain  ?  only  a  heap  of 
fragments.  Instead  of  a  statue,  a  torso,  and  even 
that  all  battered  and  broken.  Instead  of  a  temple 
brightened  and  glorified  by  the  inhabitation  of  God, 
a  heap  of  loose  stones  having  no  more  connection 
v/ith  each  other  than  that  which  juxtaposition  gives 
them.  Whatever  else  may  be  said,  therefore,  this 
must  be  admitted,  that  these  Evangelists  designed  to 
depict  a  supernatural  life.  That  which  they  describe 
is  in  itself  one  great  miracle;  and  if  you  attempt  to 
eliminate  the  miraculous  from  it,  you  will  find  that 
all  of  it  evaporates  under  your  hands. 

It  has  been  alleged  by  many,  indeed,  that  they 
can  dispense  with  the  miracles,  and  yet  obtain  all  the 
spiritual  good  that  they  require  from  Jesus  Christ. 
But  if  those  who  express  that  opinion  still  believe  ii 


8         NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES 

the  Deity  of  Jesus,  they  have  in  the  Incarnation  the 
very  thing  which  they  repudiate,  and  they  have  it, 
too,  in  a  form  which  furnishes  the  explanation  of  all 
the  other  supernatural  things  which  the  gospels 
record.  If,  again,  they  disbelieve  His  deity,  their  re- 
jection of  the  miracles  carries  with  it  the  condemna- 
tion of  His  moral  character;  for  He  laid  claim  to  be 
a  miracle-worker,  and  it  remains  to  be  explained  by 
them  how  one  who  must  have  been  a  deliberate 
deceiver,  has  obtained  and  maintained  such  a  hold 
upon  the  hearts  of  men,  and  has  more  than  all  others 
contributed  to  the  formation  in  them  of  a  character 
that  is  distinguished  for  truth  and  uprightness. 

Moreover,  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  the  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  of  Christianity  are  all  the  formuli- 
zation  of  supernatural  facts  in  the  history  of  Christ. 
The  incarnation  and  resurrection  are  both  miracles, 
and  shorn  of  these,  what  is  left  of  the  Gospel  which 
we  preach  ?  Take  that  ancient  confession  of  faith, 
which  we  call  "  The  Apostles'  Creed,"  and  eliminate 
from  it  everything  that  expresses  miracle  or  pre- 
supposes it,  and  see  how  little  would  remain.  Only 
the  first  four  words,  *'  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  ; " 
and  these  also  would  go  if  with  some  modern  philoso- 
phers we  include  God  under  the  supernatural.  Un- 
less, therefore,  we  are  willing  to  go  back  to  the  barest 
theism  or  the  darkest  atheism,  we  are  committed 
to  the  acceptance  and  defence  of  the  supernatural. 


NA  TURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES        q 

It  may  be  possible  for  a  time  for  those  who  have 
themselves  given  up  their  faith  in  miracles,  to  retain 
some  of  the  things  which  they  have  absorbed,  in  spite 
of  their  intellectual  skepticism,  from  the  evangelical 
atmosphere  in  which  they  have  been  trained,  and  in 
which,  largely  at  least,  they  still  live.  But  it  is  none 
the  less  true  that  apart  from  the  supernatural  in  it, 
even  Christianity  becomes  the  merest  theism  ;  with 
nothing  in  it  of  the  character  of  a  revelation,  and  dif- 
fering only  in  degree  from  other  systems  of  men. 
Admirably  has  one  said,  "  Some  there  are,  no  doubt, 
who  talk  of  such  theistic  beliefs,  combined  with  high 
morality,  as  the  essence  of  Christianity,  but  with 
what  right?  Theism  and  morality,  however  essen- 
tial to  Christianity,  are  common  in  greater  or  less 
degree  to  many  other  systems  also ;  while  all  that  is 
distinctive  in  Christian  theism  and  morality  comes 
from  the  relation  in  which  these  elements  stand  to 
the  historical  facts  of  its  founder's  life  and  work.  To 
call  these  common  elements,  then,  the  essence  of 
Christianity — ignoring  all  that,  whether  by  ennobling 
them,  or  still  more  by  its  own  proper  significance 
and  worth,  distinguishes  Christianity  from  other  relig- 
ions— is  not  only  to  sin  against  the  unanimous  wit- 
ness of  the  Christian  Church  throughout  all  ages 
(which  must  surely  be  admitted  as  decisive),  but  is 
intrinsically  unfair."*    This,  therefore,  is  no  mere  mat- 

*  George  Warrington.    "  Can  we  Believe  in  Miracles?"  pp.  5.  6. 


10      NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

ter  of  secondary  importance.  The  debate  about  the 
supernatural  is  no  skirmish  between  stragglers  on 
the  outskirts  of  the  field :  it  is  a  conflict  for  the  very 
center  and  key  of  the  position,  and  no  Christian  can 
be  indifferent  to  its  issue.  ^'  It  is  not  a  vain  thing 
for  us,  because  it  is  our  life." 

Let  us,  then,  with  a  full  realization  of  all  that  is 
involved  in  the  case,  proceed  to  an  investigation  of 
the  subject. 

And  first,  let  us  endeavor  to  obtain  a  correct  idea 
of  what  a  miracle  is.  In  the  New  Testament  four 
words  are  employed  to  designate  supernatural  works, 
namely,  miracles,  wonders,  signs,  and  works.  The 
first  {dvvoijxEiq)  signifies  ''powers,"  and  refers  to 
the  agency  by  which  they  were  produced ;  the 
second  {repara)  denotes  "  marvels,"  and  describes 
their  effect  on  the  minds  of  the  beholders  ;  the  third 
(arjjuela),  "signs,"  has  special  reference  to  their  signifi- 
cance in  connection  with  the  system  by  whose  in- 
augurator  they  were  wrought ;  while  the  last  {s'pya)^ 
''works,"  is  used  only  by  Jesus  himself,  and  is  in  His 
lips,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  peculiarly  suggestive,  since 
it  implies  that  the  effects  which  seemed  to  others,  and 
rightly  seemed  to  them,  so  marvellous,  were  from 
His  own  point  of  view  perfectly  natural,  as  being,  in 
fact,  only  the  manifestation  of  His  Deity. 

A  miracle  we  define  to  be  a  work  out  of  the  usual 
sequence  of  secondary  causes  and  effects,  which  can 


NA  TURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.      1 1 

not  be  accounted  for  by  the  ordinary  action  of  these 
causes,  and  which  is  produced  by  the  agency  of  God 
in  connection  with  the  word  of  one  who  claims  to  be 
His  representative.  It  is  not  a  violation  of  what  are 
popularly  called  the  "  laws  of  nature,"  and  I  can  not 
but  regard  it  as  unfortunate  that  any  such  descrip- 
tion of  it  should  ever  have  been  given.  If  from  the 
operation  of  precisely  the  same  secondary  causes,  an 
entirely  opposite  effect  were  to  be  produced,  that 
would  be  a  violation  of  a  law  of  nature.  But  a 
miracle  is  not  such  an  effect ;  it  is  a  work  which  is 
due  wholly  to  the  introduction  and  operation  of  a 
new  cause.  When  a  boy  throws  a  stone  up  into  the 
air  there  is  a  counteraction  of  the  force  of  gravity,  so 
far  as  the  stone  is  concerned,  but  there  is  no  violation 
of  the  law  of  gravitation,  for  the  simple  explanation 
is,  that  another  force,  generated  in  the  will,  and  ex- 
erted by  the  muscular  energy  of  the  boy,  has  come 
into  operation  and  performed  its  work,  while  \Xv^ 
force  of  gravity  is  really  as  strong  as  it  ever  was.  In 
like  manner,  a  miracle  does  not  violate  nature  ;  but 
a  new  force  comes  in  at  the  moment  to  produce  a 
supernatural  effect. 

Neither  can  a  miracle  truthfully  be  described  as 
the  suspension  of  a  law  of  nature  ;  for  using  the 
analogy  which  I  have  just  employed,  even  while  the 
stone  was  ascending  into  the  air,  the  force  of  gravity 
continued,  and  the  law  of  gravitation  remained  the 


12       NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

principle  on  which  the  material  universe  is  regulated. 
A  suspension  of  any  law  throughout  the  universe, 
even  for  the  briefest  time,  would  issue  in  the  most 
disastrous  results.  But  a  miracle  is  not  such  a  sus- 
pension. It  is  the  production  of  a  new  effect,  by 
the  intervention  of  a  new  cause,  which  brings  about, 
not  the  abrogation  of  any  law,  but  only  a  devi- 
ation, in  a  single  instance,  from  that  which  is  the 
ordinary  course  of  things.  There  needs,  therefore, 
be  no  jealousy  of  miracles  on  the  part  of  those 
whose  office  it  is  to  investigate  the  operation  of 
the  forces  of  that  which  they  call  nature.  There 
/Could  be  no  exceptional  deviations,  if  there  were  no 
uniformity  as  a  rule ;  and  so  it  is  as  essential  to  the 
advocates  of  the  supernatural,  as  it  is  to  the  dis- 
ciples of  science,  to  contend  for  the  regularity  and 
constancy,  or,  to  use  the  strongest  word,  the  unifor- 
mity of  the  course  of  nature. 

But,  it  is  objected,  that  the  laws  of  nature  are 
absolutely  rigid  in  their  uniformity,  and  that  such  a 
deviation  from  that  as  a  miracle  involves  is  a  pure 
impossibility.  This  is  the  ground  taken  up  by  many 
in  these  days,  and  therefore  it  must  be  well  exam- 
ined, if  we  would  dislodge  them  from  its  occupancy. 
Let  it  be  conceded,  then,  that  speaking  of  the  phys- 
ical universe  alone,  this  absolute  constancy  in  the 
sequence  of  antecedents  and  consequents  is  not  only 
an    irrefutable    inference    from    the    observation    of 


NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.       13 

phenomena,  but  also  an  indispensable  requisite  to 
the  training  of  man  as  a  moral  being.  We  fully 
endorse  here  the  words  of  an  eloquent  writer : 
"Without  a  reliable  universe  no  moral  character 
could  grow.  A  fickle  world  admits  only  of  a  law- 
less race,  and  no  obedience  could  be  required  from 
those  who  are  planted  among  shifting  conditions,  to 
whom  foresight  is  denied,  and  whose  wisdom  is  as 
likely  to  go  astray  as  their  folly.  All  human  habits 
are  formed  by  a  mutual  understanding  between  man 
and  nature.""^  So  the  constancy,  or,  if  you  will,  the 
uniformity  of  the  operations  of  nature,  is  a  truth 
which  is  of  as  much  importance  to  the  Christian 
moralist  as  it  is  to  the  physical  philosopher.  It  is 
not  only  a  truth  which  must  be  accepted,  but  it  is 
also  an  indispensable  factor  in  the  formation  of 
character. 

But  when  we  speak  of  the  uniformity  of  the  ope- 
rations of  the  laws  of  nature,  what  precisely  do  we 
mean  by  *'  laws  "  and  what  by  "■  nature  "  ?  The  questions 
are  important,  because  of  the  different  senses  in 
which  the  words  are  used  among  us,  and  the  conse- 
quent liability  to  which  we  are  exposed  of  giving  to 
them  a  meaning  in  one  connection  which  is  correct 
only  in  another.  As  regards  *'  law,"  the  Duke  of 
Argyll  in  his  admirable  volume   on  "  The  Reign  of 


*  Rev.  James  Martineau,  D.D.,  "  Hours  of  Thought  on  Sacred 
Things,"  p.  77. 


14      NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

Law,"  has  enumerated  no  fewer  than  five  distinct 
senses  in  which  it  is  used  by  good  and  reputable 
writers ;  but,  for  t?he  present,  it  will  be  enough  to 
distinguish  between  the  two  which  are  most  com- 
monly confounded.  In  its  physical  sense,  a  law  is 
an  invariable  sequence  of  antecedents  and  conse- 
quents. We  see  that  certain  things  invariably  follow 
certain  other  things,  and  we  generalize  our  observa- 
tion into  something  which  we  call  the  law  of  the 
phenomena.  In  this  sense  a  law  is  a  human  infer- 
ence from  the  observation  of  the  operations  of  nat- 
ure ;  and  as  Sir  John  Herschel  long  ago  remarked, 
''  the  use  of  the  word  in  this  connection  has  relation 
to  us  as  understanding  rather  than  to  the  universe  as 
obeying  certain  rules.""  Thus  understood,  it  must 
be  evident  to  every  one  that  a  law  can  be  the  cause 
of  nothing.  The  law  of  gravitation  does  not  make 
any  body  fall  to  the  earth  or  hold  any  planet  in  its 
course  ;  it  is  only  the  name  which  men  have  given  to 
the  formula  which  they  have  deduced  from  their 
observation  of  falling  bodies  and  of  the  solar  sys- 
tem. It  is  itself  the  result  of  the  classification  of 
human  observations,  and  can  not  therefore  be  meta- 
morphosed into  the  cause  which  produces  the  phe- 
nomena that  have  been  thus  observed  and  classified. 
We  distinguish  here  between  law  and  force.     Force 


*  Sir  John  Herschel,  "  Preliminary  Discourse  on  Astronomy." 


NA  TURK  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIR  A  CLES.       1 5 

is  the  energy  which  produces  the  effects  ;  but  law  is 
the  observed  manner  in  which  force  works  in  the 
production  of  these  effects.  So  far  all  is  clear.  But 
then,  in  the  moral  sphere,  the  term  "  law  "  is  used  to  "' 
denote  a  rule  of  conduct  which  we  are  bound  to 
obey  ;  and  thus  it  has  come  about  that,  almost  in- 
sensibly to  themselves,  many  have  imported  this  idea 
of  obligation  from  the  moral  into  the  physical  sphere, 
and  look  upon  a  law  of  nature  as  enforcing  the 
sequences  of  which  it  is  really  only  the  record 
written  in  the  short-hand  of  a  convenient  formula. 
We  must  be  on  our  guard,  therefore,  against  intro- 
ducing the  element  of  causation  into  our  conception 
of  a  law  of  nature.  Such  a  law  causes  nothing. 
Force  is  the  active  energy ;  law  is  the  observed  man- 
ner in  which  force  works.  But  now,  supposing  that 
force  to  be,  in  the  last  resort,  the  volition  or  power  of 
a  personal  omnipotent  being,  where  is  the  impossi- 
bility of  its  being  put  forth,  in  exceptional  instances, 
and  for  a  sufiiicient  purpose,  in  a  way  different  from 
that  in  which  it  is  usually  exerted  ?  If  law  may  be 
regarded  as  the  observed  manner  in  which  God  has 
ordinarily  chosen  to  carry  on  the  operations  of  the 
physical  universe,  is  it  not  just  as  possible  for  Him 
to  vary  that  order  in  exceptional  cases,  and  for  a 
specific  and  worthy  purpose,  as  it  is  to  maintain  it  in 
uniformity?  If  nature  be  God's  usual  action,  is  there 
any  impossibility  involved  in  the  conception  of  mir- 


1 6      NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

acle  as  unusual  Divine  action  ?  "^  or  must  we  regard 
these  so-called  laws  as  chains  wherewith  the  Deity- 
has  bound  Himself,  and  by  which  He  is  held  from 
doing  anything,  no  matter  for  what  purpose,  different 
from  what  He  has  always  been  observed  by  men  to 
do? 

The  force  of  these  considerations  is  increased  when 
we  ask  further,  what  is  that  "  nature  "  of  which  we 
speak  when  we  use  the  phrase  the  "  laws  of  nature  "  ? 
If  it  be  restricted  to  merely  physical  phenomena, 
then  it  must  be  confessed  that  we  have  in  them  no 
experience  or  observation  of  any  interference  with 
the  uniformity  of  its  operations  ;  but  if,  within  the 
domain  of  nature,  we  include  human  nature,  then  we 
can  no  longer  make  any  such  admission.  For  here 
we  come  into  contact  with  a  new  sort  of  power, 
namely,  the  power  of  the  soul  of  man,  which  does 
continually  intervene  among  the  forces  of  nature, 
and  produces  effects  aside  from,  and  out  of,  the  usual 
sequences  of  physical  phenomena.  All  the  triumphs 
of  mechanics,  of  science,  and  of  art  have  been  won 
through  the  exercise  of  this  power  possessed  by  man, 
of  bending  the  forces  of  nature  to  his  will  and  using 
them  in  his  service.  We  are  continually  reaching 
results  which  the  forces  of  nature,  left  to  themselves, 
never  could  have  caused  ;  and  if  this  be  so  with  men, 


*  See  "  The  Mystery  of  Miracles,"  by  the  author  of  "  The  Super- 
natural in  Nature,"  p.  15. 


NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.      \y 

why  should  we  deny  to  God  the  possibility  of  inter- 
vening in  a  similar  way,  and  so  producing  effects  that 
are  not  merely  supernatural,  but  superhuman  ?  The 
truth  is,  that  if  the  personal  existence  of  God  be  in- 
telligently admitted,  and  if  it  be  conceded  that  He 
is  carrying  on  the  operations  of  the  universe  by  His 
power,  there  is  no  longer  any  foundation  for  the 
argument  against  the  possibility  of  miracles,  inas- 
much as  then  they  are  seen  to  be  only  unusual  mani- 
festations of  the  same  energy  by  which  the  common 
and  ordinary  processes  of  nature  are  maintained. 

The  verification  of  this  is  seen  in  the  fact  that,  in 
recent  days,  the  persistent  antagonists  of  the  super- 
natural have  been  driven  either  to  the  positive  denial 
of  the  existence  of  God,  or  to  that  sad  and  dark 
Agnosticism  which  is  sure  of  nothing,  but  that  noth- 
ing can  be  known  upon  the  subject.  And  in  dealing 
with  that,  it  might  be  enough  to  say  with  Bacon, 
that  "  God  never  wrought  miracles  to  convince  Athe- 
ism, because  His  ordinary  works  convince  it."^"  The 
first  postulate  of  Revelation  is  the  being  and  person- 
ahty  of  God — "In  the  beginning,  God" — and  we 
might  almost  be  content  to  leave  it  where  the  Bible 
leaves  it,  without  any  formal  attempt  to  confirm  it 
by  argument.  But  we  can  not  forbear  saying  that 
the  "  I  am  "  of  human  consciousness  is  in  the  soul, 


*  "  Bacon's    Essays,    with  Annotations   by   Richard   Whately, 
D.D.,"p.  i88. 


1 8      NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

instinctively  recognized  as  the  echo  of  that  greater 
"  I  Am  "  which  Moses  heard  when  he  stood  with  un- 
sandaled  feet  beside  the  burning  bush. 

In  the  same  way,  the  experience  of  my  own  caus- 
ative power  disposes  me  to  seek  for  a  great  first  cause. 
It  is  to  no  purpose  that  Mr.  Huxley  affirms  that  "  the 
origin  of  the  elements  of  consciousness,  no  less  than 
that  of  all  its  other  states,  is  to  be  sought  in  bodily 
changes,  the  seat  of  which  can  only  be  placed  in  the 
brain ;  "^"  for  though  we  admit  the  changes  in  the 
brain  as  connected  with  consciousness,  it  does  not 
follow  that  they  are  the  causes  of  it.  A  blush  on 
the  countenance  is  the  common  concomitant  of  the 
feeling  of  shame,  but  it  is  not  the  cause  of  that  feel- 
ing;  rather  the  spiritual  condition,  according  to  the 
consciousness  of  every  one,  is  the  cause  of  the  phys- 
ical change ;  and  if  that  be  so  with  an  external  ap- 
pearance, the  analogy  leads  us  to  conclude  that  the 
change  in  the  brain  itself  is  the  result  and  not  the 
cause  of  the  spiritual  emotion.  But  such  a  statement 
of  such  a  philosopher  is  an  illustration  of  the  clean 
sweep  which  materialism  would  make,  inasmuch  as 
having  ruled  the  spiritual  God  out  of  the  universe,  it 
rules  also  the  spiritual  nature  out  of  man.  But 
human  nature  will  not  let  itself  be  thus  outraged. 
It  will  insist  on  being  something  more  than  a  mate- 


"  Hume,"  by  Professor  Huxley,  p.  74. 


NA  TURK  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.       19 

rial  organization,  and  the  consciousness  of  its  own  free 
volitional  and  causal  power  will  impel  it  to  seek  for 
and  worship  a  spiritual  cause  of  the  universe  which 
it  perceives. 

Again,  the  exercise  of  my  own  intelligence  and 
choice  in  the  adaptation  of  means  to  ends,  impels  me 
irresistibly  to  conclude,  from  the  discovery  of  similar 
adaptation  in  the  works  of  nature,  that  there  must 
have  been  a  personal  mind  and  will  in  the  making  of 
such  an  adjustment. 

A  few  years  ago  great  preparations  were  made  by 
astronomers  in  Europe  and  America  for  the  purpose 
of  observing  the  transit  of  the  planet  Venus  across 
the  sun.  The  finest  instruments  were  made,  and 
parties  went  out  to  different  places  to  take  their 
several  surveys.  The  whole  thing  was  over  in  a  few 
minutes ;  but  all  this  mental  activity  of  many  human 
personalities  was  exerted  to  inspect  it  because  of  a 
certain  relation  between  it  and  other  phenomena, 
whereby  the  distance  from  the  earth  to  the  sun  might 
be  correctly  calculated.  Now,  if  all  that  adjustment 
of  means  to  ends,  arguing  the  design  of  a  personal 
being,  or  rather  of  many  personal  beings,  needed  to 
be  made  for  the  purpose  of  observing  the  phenom- 
enon, with  what  consistency  can  we  deny  that  the 
phenomenon  itself,  and  its  relations  to  other  phenom- 
ena, which  made  its  careful  inspection  so  important, 
were    produced  by  a   personal   being?      The    truth 


20      NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

is,  when  we  see  anywhere  an  adjustment  of  one  thing 
to  another  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  third  thing, 
we  are  irresistibly  impelled,  or,  at  least,  men  generally 
(with  the  possible  exception  of  a  few  agnostics)  are 
impelled,  in  spite  of  themselves,  to  refer  that  adjust- 
ment to  a  personal  and  intelligent  being,  having  both 
wisdom,  and  choice,  and  power.  When,  therefore, 
the  philosopher  says  to  me,  "  I  have  nothing  to  do 
with  final  causes,  my  business  is  simply  with  phe- 
nomena ;  I  take  cognizance  only  of  observed  appear- 
ances and  ascertained  connections ; "  I  reply,  that  as  an 
anatomist,  a  botanist,  or  a  geologist,  he  may  be  right 
enough  in  so  restricting  himself,  but,  as  a  man^  he 
can  lay  no  such  embargo  upon  his  thoughts  ;  for, 
whether  he  likes  it  or  not,  and  as  the  result  of  his 
very  manhood,  final  causes  will  force  themselves  upon 
his  attention.  As  a  man,  he  does  always  something 
more  than  observe  and  classify.  In  spite  of  himself, 
as  even  the  writings  of  our  materialistic  philosophers 
abundantly  illustrate,  he  seeks  to  go  behind  and  be- 
neath phenomena  for  some  explanation  of  the  facts. 
Besides,  as  one  has  said  very  beautifully  here, 
"  There  are  relations  between  himself  and  the  uni- 
verse which  no  analysis  of  sensuous  observations  can 
exhaust.  The  starry  sky  has  some  nameless  grandeur 
which  no  results  of  mathematical  calculation  can  ex- 
press. The  tender  clouds,  whose  colors  he  analyzes 
in  his  prism,  speak  a  language  to  his  heart  which  no 


NA TURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.      2 1 

prismatic  chart  can  interpret.  And  among  such  in- 
calculable relations  between  himself  and  the  universe 
is  the  wistful  longing  after  inner  meaning  and  ulti- 
mate aim  which  the  enigma  of  creation  always  excites 
in  the  contemplative  soul.  Most  natural  is  the  artless 
hymn  which  represents  the  young  child  as  appealing 
to  the  little  star  on  high,  and  exclaiming,  *  How  I 
wonder  what  you  are  !  *  So  all  our  life  long  we  stand 
at  gaze,  the  vision  expanding  from  a  star  to  a  uni- 
verse, while  still  all  our  cry  is  of  wonder  what  is. 
And  this  inquiry  after  what  is,  includes  manifestly 
a  longing  after  the  significance  and  purpose  of  ap- 
pearances ;  that  is,  it  involves  the  hunger  of  the  soul 
for  a  final  cause  of  creation."*  Thus  the  instinctive 
yearning  of  the  soul,  strengthened  and  made  intelli- 
gent by  the  experience  of  its  own  operations  in  caus- 
ation and  design,  leads  us  inevitably  to  a  great  in- 
telligent cause,  "  of  whom,  and  to  whom,  and  through 
whom  are  all  things." 

But  to  some  it  may  seem  as  if  the  modern  hy- 
pothesis of  development  or  evolution,  militated  con- 
clusively against  the  personal  existence  and  agency 
of  God  as  the  sustainer  of  all  things ;  and  so  left  no 
place  for  the  supernatural,  because  it  has  no  place  for 
God.  The  fact,  however,  that  this  hypothesis  has 
been   adopted,  and   is  advocated   by  men,  some  of 


*  J.  A.  Picton,  "  New  Theories  and  the  Old  Faith,"  pp.  7,  8. 


22       NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

whom  are  devout  believers  in  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  shows  that  it  is  not  essen- 
tially atheistic;  though,  undoubtedly,  it  is  held  by 
many  who  have  no  place  for  God  in  their  philosophy.* 
To  me  it  seems  that  even  if  it  were  conclusively 
proved  to  be  true,  which,  however,  is  still  very  far 
from  being  the  case,  the  argument  for  the  existence  of 
God  from  design,  would  not  lose  one  particle  of  its 
strength.  For  where  it  is  held  in  conjunction  with 
atheism,  its  votaries  have  been  guilty  of  tHe  fallacy 
which  we  have  already  exposed  in  connection  with 
the  word  law.  They  have  taken  a  whole  class  of 
results,  and  made  the  formulized  expression  of  that, 
the  cause  of  the  production  of  these  results.  They 
have  named  their  law  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  and 
have  supposed  that  thereby  they  have  accounted  for 
the  peculiar  fitness  of  each  permanent  species  to  sur- 
vive, which  is,  of  course,  absurd.  I  have  never  seen 
this  thought  so  powerfully  put  as  by  the  late  Canon 
Mozley,  who  thus  reasons :  "  Natural  selection  is 
not  an  agent  at  all,  but  a  result.  It  is  the  effect 
which  proceeds  from  a  favorable  modification  or 
development  of  structure  in  one  animal,  in  the 
struggle  for  existence  with  another  animal  not 
thus  additionally  endowed,  viz,  his  survivorship 
and    continuance   on    the  field  while  the  other  per- 


*  See  Appendix  A. 


NA  TURK  AND  POSSIBILIL  V  OF  MIRACLES.      23 

ishes."*  But  whence  has  come  this  favorable  modifi- 
cation or  development  ?  As  Mozley  goes  on  to  say, 
"  The  favored  party  in  this  struggle,  the  party  that 
lives  would  have  lived  all  the  same  if  there  had  been 
no  struggle  for  existence  and  no  natural  selection  ; 
and  he  does  not  owe  his  existence  and  continuance 
to  natural  selection,  he  only  owes  his  sole  existence 
to  it  as  distinguished  from  the  fate  of  a  rival  who 
perishes."f  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  question  of  caus- 
ation is  concerned,  natural  selection  leaves  it  where  it 
found  it.  It  does  not  itself  account  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  fittest ;  but  only  for  the  disappearance 
of  the  unfit  in  what  is  called  "  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence," and  it  leaves  as  much  room  for,  nay,  it  as 
inexorably  demands  the  presence  of  a  presiding  and 
overruling  mind,  as  does  the  old  decried  theory  of 
special  creation.  Hence,  in  reply  to  those  who,  when 
we  speak  of  the  supernatural,  meet  us  with  the  theory 
of  development — we  take  our  stand  again  on  the 
instinctive  yearning  of  the  human  soul  for  a  cause 
for  every  effect,  and  we  say,  ^'  Suppose  we  admit 
your  hypothesis,  then  we  are  still  impelled  to  ask, 
whence  came  the  primordial  germ  out  of  which  all 
that  we  see,  as  well  as  all  that  we  are,  is  said  to  have 
sprung  ?    How  could  there  be  evolution  without  pre- 


*  Canon  Mozley's  Essays,  Historical  and  Theological,  Vol.  II.,  p. 
396. 
f  Ibid,  p.  396.     See  Appendix  B. 


24      NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES, 

vious  involution?  Who,  then,  put  into  that  proto- 
plasm the  "promise  and  the  potency  "  of  all  that  has 
ultimately  come  out  of  it  ?  Let  us  concede  the  facts 
from  the  analogy  of  which  your  theory  of  natural 
selection  has  been  suggested :  the  inquiry  still  arises, 
must  there  not  be,  according  to  the  analogy  of  these 
facts — notably  that  of  the  pigeon  breeder,  for  in- 
stance— some  mind  or  will  presiding  to  regulate  the 
selection  ?  Let  us  grant  that  there  is  some  founda- 
tion for  the  law  which  has  been  called  the  "  survival 
of  the  fittest,"  then  the  irrepressible  question  still 
leaps  to  the  lips,  whence  came  this  "  fittest-ness  "  for 
surviving  ?  Has  it  been  the  result  of  chance  ?  or, 
must  there  not  have  been  a  presiding  intelligence 
who  in  accordance  with  that  law  is  carrying  forward 
his  purposes  and  working  out  his  will  ? 

Moreover,  if  there  be  such  a  great  gulf  fixed  be- 
tween that  which  is  destitute  of  life,  and  that  which 
possesses  life,  that,  on  the  confession  of  the  most 
illustrious  naturalists,  no  process  yet  known  to  man, 
or  observed  in  nature,  has  been  able  to  bridge  it, 
whence  came  life  ?  If  life  must  have  its  origin  in 
life,  must  there  not  be,  high  over  all  natural  develop- 
ments, one  who  is  emphatically  the  living  one,  having 
life  in  himself  and  quickening  whom  he  will?  and 
is  there  not  in  the  first  appearance  of  life  in  what  you 
call  development,  that  which  is,  on  your  own  show- 
ing, a   miracle — namely,   a   work   out   of  the   usual 


NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.       25 

sequence  of  secondary  causes  and  effects,  and  pro- 
duced by  an  agency  from  without,  or  what  we  call 
the  agency  of  God  ? 

So,  in  vindicating  the  existence  and  personality  of 
a  living  God  from  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  de- 
velopment in  an  atheistic  form,  we  have  found  both 
an  answer  to  them,  and  taking  them  on  their  own 
ground  a  miracle  in  the  far  past,  which  proves  at 
least  the  possibility  of  such  occurrences" ;  while  we 
trust  that  we  have  made  it  apparent  that  the  affirma- 
tion of  the  impossibility  of  a  miracle  carries  with  it 
the  elimination  of  God  out  of  the  universe,  and  of  the 
spirit  out  of  man. 


THE   SUPERNATURAL   IN   CHRIST. 


LECTURE    II. 

THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN   CHRIST. 

John  xiv.  II :  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
in  me  ;  or  else  believe  me  for  the  very  works'  sake. 

In  dealing  with  the  question  of  the  credibility  of 
miracles,  two  methods,  each  of  which  is  independent 
of  the  other,  and  satisfactory  in  itself,  may  be  adopt- 
ed. We  may  either  begin  with  the  character  and 
personality  of  the  miracle-worker,  and  draw  from 
these  such  conclusions  as  shall  warrant  us  in  accept- 
ing as  genuine  the  mighty  works  which  He  per- 
formed, inasmuch  as  they  are  in  perfect  keeping  with 
the  great  object  which  He  had  in  view,  and  such  as 
it  was  not  only  possible,  but  natural  that  He  should 
do ;  or  we  may  start  from  the  contemplation  of  the 
miracles  themselves,  and  taking  into  consideration 
the  testimony  by  which  they  are  supported,  the  char- 
acter of  the  witnesses  by  whom  that  testimony  is 
borne,  and  the  absurdity  of  the  position  into  which 
we  shall  be  driven  if  such  testimony  should  be  treated 
as  false,  we  may  rise  through  the  works  to  the  recog- 
nition of  the  divine  personality  of  Him  who  wrought 
them.     We  may  look  first  at  the  character  of  Jesus 

(29) 


30  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

Christ  himself,  and  from  an  investigation  of  that, 
altogether  irrespective,  for  the  time  being,  of  His 
miracles,  we  may  find  reason  to  believe  that  He  is  in- 
deed "God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  That  gives  us 
the  Incarnation,  which  is  not  only  in  itself  a  miracle, 
but  also  the  explanation  and  vindication  of  all  the 
miracles  which  Christ  performed  ;  for  from  the  eleva- 
tion which  that  supplies,  these  wonderful  works  are 
seen  to  be  natural  to  Him,  as  but  the  forth-puttings, 
on  proper  occasions,  and  for  sufficient  reasons,  of  the 
omnipotence  which  is  one  of  the  attributes  of  Deity. 
Or  taking  up  the  works  themselves  as  facts  attested 
by  evidence  sufficient  to  establish  the  occurrence 
even  of  such  marvellous  things,  we  may  see  in  them 
the  Divine  endorsement  of  the  doctrines  He  taught, 
and  of  the  claims  He  made,  and  so  through  them 
reach  to  the  faith,  expressed  by  Thomas,  when,  as 
the  reality  of  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
was  apprehended  by  him,  he  said,  "My  Lord  and 
my  God." 

.,  The  miracles  are  thus,  from  one  point  of  view,  the 
natural  accompaniments  of  the  Incarnation  ;  and  from 
another,  the  evidences  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  In- 
carnate God.  Nor  let  any  one  suppose  that  these  two 
'  methods  of  looking  at  them  are  incompatible  with  each 
other.  They  are  independent  of  each  other,  but  not 
inconsistent  with  each  other ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
they  are  both  sanctioned  by  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST.  31 

himself.  Thus  in  His  last  conversation  with  His  fol- 
lowers, when  Philip  asked  Him  to  show  them  the 
Father,  He  replied :  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
seen  the  Father,  and  how  sayest  thou,  then,  show  us 
the  Father?  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  ?  The  words  that  I 
speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself;  but  the 
Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works. 
Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
in  me,  or  else  (or  if  not)  believe  me  for  the  very 
works'  sake."  *  To  the  same  effect  is  His  vindication 
of  Himself  from  the  charge  of  blasphemy  brought 
against  Him  by  the  Jews,  when  He  said  :  "  I  and  my 
Father  are  one  ;  "  thus,  "  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my 
Father,  believe  me  not ;  but  if  I  do,  though  ye  be- 
lieve not  me,  believe  the  works,  that  ye  may  know 
and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him."f 
Thus  alike  to  His  friends  and  to  His  enemies,  Jesus 
put  forth  Himself  as  one  with  the  Father.  If  they 
had  such  appreciation  of  His  character  as  to  see  His 
Godhead  through  that,  then  they  had  at  once  the 
best  of  reasons  for  believing  Him  ;  but  if  they  could 
not  reach  such  a  height  by  the  mere  contemplation 
of  Himself,  then  the  supernatural  works  which  He 
performed  might  serve  as  a  stairway  up  which  they 
might  ascend  to  the  reception  of  Him  as  Incarnate 
God. 


*  John  xiv.  9-1 1.  f  Ibid.  x.  38 


32 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


These  two  methods  of  arriving  at  virtually  the  same 
result  are  separate  and  independent  processes ;  they 
are  not  contradictory.  The  one  does  not  interfere 
with  the  other,  or  build  on  anything  which  needs  first 
to  be  established  by  the  other.  We  may  therefore 
take  either  according  to  the  object  which  we  have  in 
view,  or  we  may  employ  both,  if,  for  any  reason,  it 
may  seem  expedient  that  we  should  do  so.  Now, 
there  is  one  good  reason  why  we  may  seek,  in  these 
discourses,  to  formulate,  amplify,  and  illustrate  both ; 
for  there  are  two  orders  of  minds  among  men  which 
correspond  to  these  two  methods.  On  the  one  hand, 
we  have  the  reflective  type,  which  is  most  easily 
moved  by  that  which  lays  hold  on  the  moral  nature, 
and  is  impressed  more  deeply  by  that  which  is  re- 
vealed through  character  than  by  any  merely  physical 
manifestation  of  power.  On  individuals  of  that  order, 
the  perception  of  the  moral  miracle  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
is  more  effective  than  any  argument  drawn  even  from 
His  resurrection  from  the  dead.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  have  the  perceptive  type,  which  is  influenced  by 
things  occurring  before  the  eyes,  or  by  efl:ects  that 
are  startling  to  the  senses,  and  inexplicable  by  ordi- 
nary physical  laws,  more  than  by  moral  or  spiritual 
manifestations ;  and  for  those  of  this  class  the  super- 
natural works  wrought  by  Christ  become,  when  satis- 
factorily established,  the  means  of  leading  them  to 
faith  in  Him  as  ''  the  true  God  and  Eternal  Life.'* 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST.  33 

Every  age  of  the  Church  has  seen  minds  of  both 
these  orders.  In  one  age,  indeed,  the  one  has  seemed 
to  have  pre-eminence,  and  in  another,  the  other ;  but 
always  there  have  been  some  of  each,  and  sometimes 
the  same  individual  has  passed  through  both  phases. 
At  first,  in  the  outset  of  his  inquiries  into  the  Gospel 
narratives,  he  has  sympathized  with  Nicodemus,  and 
has  gone  to  Jesus  in  the  faith  that  no  man  could  do 
such  miracles  as  He  did  except  God  were  with  him ; 
but  as  the  years  have  rolled  on,  and  the  glory  of 
Christ's  character  has  grown  upon  him,  through  his 
own  growth  in  every  grace,  he  has  felt  himself  think- 
ing less  and  less  of  the  miracles  as  works  of  power. 
They  are  no  stumbling-blocks  to  him,  indeed  ;  but 
they  enter  less  consciously  into  his  thoughts  than 
they  did  before.  He  rests  in  his  conviction  that 
Christ  is  the  '■'■  Word  "  made  "  flesh,"  whose  glory  is 
"  full  of  grace  and  truth  ; "  and  though  he  got  to  that 
conviction  at  the  first  through  the  miracles,  he  retains 
it  now,  without  much  reference  to  them,  but  because 
of  his  increasing  appreciation  of  the  Christ  himself. 
The  works  have  become  almost  secondary  things, 
in  his  realization  of  the  Deity  of  the  worker. 

I  believe  many  of  us  are  conscious  of  having  passed 
through  an  experience  like  that.  But  something  of 
the  same  sort  has  occurred  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  as  a  whole.  In  the  beginning,  the 
impression  made  by  the  miracles  was  very  strong. 


24  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

The  men  who  actually  saw  them  never  could  forget 
the  effect  which  was  produced  upon  them  by  the 
sight.  But  as  the  witnesses  gradually  passed  away 
and  left  only  their  testimony  behind  them,  very  nat- 
urally the  vividness  of  the  result  was  diminished  ; 
and  we  do  not  find  that  any  reader  of  the  account  of 
the  first  miraculous  draft  of  fishes  was  ever  stimulated 
thereby  to  cry  with  Peter,  when  he  saw  it,  "  Depart 
from  me,  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord."  This,  how- 
ever, is  largely  compensated  by  the  fact,  that  in  pro- 
portion as  the  freshness  of  the  impression  first  pro- 
duced by  the  sight  of  Christ's  miracles  has  worn  off, 
the  character  and  influence  of  Christ  himself  have 
become  increasingly  operative  among  men,  and  are 
to-day  the  most  potent  forces  at  work  on  humanity 
at  large.  They  who  lived  beside  Him  were  too  close 
upon  Him  to  see  all  that  His  character  implied  ;  for 
them,  therefore,  the  miracles  were,  in  the  startlingness 
of  their  effects,  exceedingly  helpful  in  giving  them  a 
right  appreciation  of  His  mission.  But  as  the  cen- 
turies have  rolled  on,  and  brought  out,  strangely 
enough,  only  the  more  distinctly  as  they  have  ad- 
vanced, the  majesty  of  Christ  himself,  we  find  now 
that  the  personality  of  Christ  is  the  great  solvent  of 
His  miracles.  It  enables  us  to  understand,  explain, 
and  defend  them;  and,  after  our  acceptance  of  Him, 
we  have  little  or  no  hesitation  about  receiving  them. 
I  think  I  can  see   evidences   that  in  the  apostolic 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST.  35 

age  itself  a  transition  of  the  kind  which  I  have 
indicated  had  passed,  at  least,  over  one  of  the  Evan- 
gelists. The  first  gospels  abound  in  miracles  to 
a  far  greater  extent  than  the  last.  That  of  Mark, 
the  earliest,  as  it  is  generally  believed,  of  the  four, 
gives  special  prominence  to  them ;  that  of  Mat- 
thew presents  us  with  some  of  the  most  important 
discourses,  but  still  the  miracles  occupy  what  may 
be  regarded  as  the  most  conspicuous  place ;  that  of 
Luke,  which  came  still  later,  partakes  of  the  same 
character,  though  by  the  introduction  of  those  para- 
bles, which  are  peculiar  to  him,  this  evangelist  shows 
us  that  he  had  attained  a  deeper  insight  than  his 
predecessors  into  the  heart  of  Christ.  But  that  of 
John  puts  the  Incarnation  first,  for  by  the  time  he 
came  to  write  it,  the  aged  apostle  had  grown  to  a 
larger  apprehension  of  the  character  of  his  Lord, 
and  it  is  his  aim  throughout  it  to  let  that  character  ap- 
pear and  speak  for  itself.  So  we  account  for  the  fact, 
that  in  the  fourth  gospel,  we  have  the  record  of  com- 
paratively few  miracles,^  and  even  these  few  are  de- 
scribed, not  so  much  for  their  own  sake,  or  for  the 
sake  of  the  evidence  which  they  gave  to  Christ,  as  be- 
cause they  were  the  starting-points  of  those  discourses 
wherein  Jesus  gave  the  brightest  testimony  to  Him- 
self.    The  increased  distance  between  him  and  the 


*  Only  eight,  exclusive  of  His  resurrection. 


36  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

date  of  the  Lord's  life,  helped  John  to  see  better  the 
transcending  glory  of  that  life  ;  and  he  was  more  in- 
tent on  showing  that  to  his  readers  than  on  giving  a 
series  of  miracles.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  dis- 
covered the  right  explanation ;  but,  whether  I  have 
or  not,  the  fact  is  apparent,  that  the  latest  of  the  four 
gospels  contains  the  record  of  the  fewest  miracles, 
and  that  of  itself  ought  to  be  conclusive  against  the 
theory  which  would  make  the  stories  of  the  miracles 
myths,  which  grew  around  the  popular  conception  of 
Christ  among  the  members  of  the  Church.  The 
truth  seems  rather  to  have  been,  that  the  miracles  at 
first  assumed  the  prominence,  and  then  gradually  re- 
ceded into  a  secondary  place  as  men  gained  an  im- 
pression of  the  grander  miracle  which  was  presented 
in  the  character  of  Christ. 

It  will  not  seem  strange  to  yjDU,  therefore,  that  of 
the  two  methods  which  I  have  described,  I  should 
begin  with  the  first.  We  take  that  miracle  which  is 
existing  and  operating  yet  before  our  eyes  and  in  the 
midst  of  us — the  supernatural  in  Christ — and  we  find 
in  the  establishment  of  that  the  proof  that  the 
mighty  works  here  recorded  are  credible. 

I  base  my  argument,  here,  on  two  facts  which  are 
patent  to  every  observer.  On  the  one  hand,  we  have  in 
these  gospels,  the  miracles  for  the  time  being  altogether 
apart,  the  record  of  a  life,  of  which  the  external  sur- 
roundings may  be  thus  described.    In  the  most  degen- 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


37 


erate  age  of  Jewish  history,  when  immoraHty  was  un- 
dermining the  foundations  of  the  Roman  ascendancy 
throughout  the  world,  a  young  man  born  in  Bethle- 
hem, and  educated  after  the  ordinary  fashion  of  His 
nation,  in  a  district  which  was  proverbial  for  its  coarse- 
ness, and  a  village  which  was  a  by-word  for  its  wick- 
edness, wrought  as  a  common  carpenter  till  He  was 
thirty  years  of  age.  Then  for  three  years  and  a  half 
He  wandered  up  and  down  His  native  land  claiming  to 
be  received  and  listened  to  as  a  teacher,  and  having 
as  His  immediate  attendants  a  few  fishermen,  tax- 
gathers,  and  men  of  no  liberal  education.  For  a  time 
He  had  a  large  following  among  the  common  people ; 
but  the  incisive  sharpness  of  His  moral  discourses  so 
cut  the  hearts  of  the  rulers,  that  at  last  they  laid  hold 
of  Him,  and,  with  the  connivance — say  rather,  through 
the  instrumentality — of  the  Roman  governor  of  the 
province,  they  secured  His  crucifixion.  These  are 
facts  which  not  even  the  wildest  scepticism  has  ever 
attempted  to  deny  or  to  call  in  question. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  incontrovertible, 
that  the  history  of  that  young  man  as  written  by  His 
followers  has  been  the  most  powerful  force  in  hu- 
man history  ever  since  its  promulgation  among  men ; 
and  that  His  name  is  to-day  worshipped  among  mil- 
lions, while  even  by  those  who  stop  short  of  worship 
it  is  venerated  as  that  of  the  greatest  of  the  sons  of  men. 
Before  four  centuries  had  passed  away,  and  that  too 


38  THE  SUPERN'A  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

in  the  face  of  repeated  persecutions  of  His  disciples  by 
the  Imperial  power,  the  spiritual  might  of  that  history- 
made  itself  felt  throughout  the  Roman  Empire,  and 
took  possession  of  the  Imperial  throne  itself ;  and  to- 
day, before  our  own  eyes,  even  at  the  distance  of 
eighteen  centuries  from  the  events,  it  is  more  active 
than  ever,  and  seems  gathering  to  itself  new  energy  for 
yet  grander  triumphs  than  any  which  it  has  yet 
achieved.  All  through  these  successive  j^ears  that 
history  has  sat  among  men  like  its  great  subject  by 
the  well  of  Sychar,  telling  them  all  things  that  ever 
they  did,  discerning  the  very  thoughts  of  their  hearts, 
and  leading  them  to  a  higher  life  than  without  it, 
they  had  ever  dreamed  of  entering  upon.  Under  its 
influence  the  drunkard  has  become  sober,  the  thief 
has  become  honest,  the  adulterer  has  become  chaste, 
the  selfish  has  become  disinterested.  It  has  gone  into 
the  homes  of  men  and  turned,  there,  the  water  of 
mere  earthly  fellowship  into  the  wine  of  spiritual 
communion,  making  each  household  where  its  su- 
premacy is  recognized,  like  that  of  Bethany,  a 
dweUing-place  in  which  the  studies  of  the  Maries  are 
hallowed  because  they  are  carried  on  at  Jesus'  feet ; 
and  the  ministrations  of  the  Marthas  are  dignified  be- 
cause they  are  rendered  unto  Him.  It  has  taken  the 
little  children  into  its  arms  and  blessed  them  ;  recog- 
nizing their  existence  with  its  smile  and  marking  their 
importance  by  its  attention.     It  has  been  to  society 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST,  39 

— excuse  the  illustration,  for  I  can  get  nothing  but  a 
miracle  that  really  resembles  it — like  the  tree  which 
Moses  cast  into  the  bitter  fountain,  and  has  sweetened 
and  purified  all  the  relationships  of  men  to  men.  It  has 
gone  into  political  life,  and  by  that  great  word,"  Render 
unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  unto 
God  the  things  that  are  God's,"  it  has  contended  suc- 
cessfully for  liberty  of  conscience  while  upholding 
human  government,  and  thereby  it  has  laid  also  the 
foundations,  broad  and  indestructible,  of  civil  free- 
dom. It  has  stood  between  class  and  class  as  the 
good  Samaritan  of  humanity,  and  has  succored  and  re- 
vived those  who  had  been  maltreated,  and  all  but  mur- 
dered by  the  grasping  avarice  and  cruel  mammonism 
of  their  fellows.  It  has,  in  fine,  been  the  consoler  of 
the  race,  amid  all  the  cares  and  sorrows  to  which  men 
are  heirs.  It  has  wiped  the  tears  from  the  eyes  of 
the  mourner  as  he  stood  by  the  grave  that  was  soon 
to  cover  in  the  remains  of  one  he  tenderly  and  truly 
loved ;  it  has  soothed  the  pain  of  the  afflicted  one  as 
he  lay  on  his  bed  of  anguish  ;  it  has  given  a  song  to 
the  oppressed  in  the  dark  night  of  his  imprisonment 
or  slavery;  and,  as  the  death  damp  has  stood  upon 
the  brow,  and  the  glaze  of  dissolution  has  dimmed  the 
eye,  it  has  given  not  only  peace,  but  positive  triumph 
to  untold  multitudes  of  men. 

These  also  are  facts  which  no  man  will  deny.     We 
have  seen  them  ourselves.     Some  of  us  have  had  per- 


40  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

sonal  experiences  which  are  their  best  attestations. 
Any  man  who  cares  to  go  to  the  right  places  to  seek 
for  them,  may  witness  them  to-night  in  multitudinous 
instances  in  the  cities  of  our  land.  Nor  have  they  been 
confined  to  any  one  age,  or  class,  or  country.  The 
power  of  this  story  has  been  proved  in  every  century. 
It  has  been  as  manifest  among  the  erudite  and  the 
elevated,  as  among  the  illiterate  and  the  lowly.  It  has 
lost  nothing  by  its  reproduction  even  in  the  rudest 
languages,  but  its  efficacy  has  been  demoiistrated 
among  the  Hindoos  and  the  Hottentots,  the  Chinese 
and  the  South  Sea  Islanders,  as  really  as  among  the 
Anglo-Saxons  of  Europe  and  America.  Its  influence 
is  over  men  as  men,  and  wherever  among  men  that 
influence  has  begun  to  work,  it  has  had  a  distinctive 
and  peculiar  effect,  like  to  nothing  else  that  has  ever 
been  operative  among  them.  It  has  quickened  them, 
intellectually,  morally,  and  spiritually,  so  that  it  may 
well  be  said  to  have  put  a  new  life  into  them.  But 
lest  you  should  think  that  with  my  inevitable  prepos- 
sessions, I  am  exaggerating  in  speaking  thus,  I  will 
fortify  myself  here  with  a  quotation  from  the  writings 
of  one  who  is  at  least  above  all  such  suspicion  in  that 
regard.  I  mean  Mr.  Lecky,  who,  in  his  ''  History  of 
Morality  from  Augustus  to  Charlemagne,"  has  written 
thus  :  '^  It  was  reserved  for  Christianity  to  present 
to  the  world  an  ideal  character,  which,  through  all 
the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries  has  filled  the  hearts 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


41 


of  men  with  an  impassioned  love,  and  has  shown  it- 
self capable  of  acting  on  all  ages,  nations,  tempera- 
ments, and  conditions ;  has  not  only  been  the  highest 
pattern  of  virtue,  but  the  highest  incentive  to  its 
practice,  and  has  exerted  so  deep  an  influence  that  it 
may  be  truly  said  that  the  simple  record  of  three 
short  years  of  active  life  has  done  more  to  regenerate 
and  to  soften  mankind  than  all  the  disquisitions  of  phi- 
losophers, and  than  all  the  exhortations  of  moralists. 
This  has  indeed  been  the  well-spring  of  whatever  has 
been  best  and  purest  in  the  Christian  life.  Amid 
all  the  sins  and  failings,  amid  all  the  priestcraft,  the 
persecution,  and  fanaticism  which  have  defaced  the 
Church,  it  has  preserved  in  the  character  and  exam- 
ple of  its  Founder  an  enduring  principle  of  regenera- 
tion."* 

Now,  taking  on  the  one  hand  the  external  sur- 
roundings of  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  I  have  set  them  be- 
fore you,  and  on  the  other  the  influence  of  that  life 
on  humanity,  I  ask.  Have  we  in  the  former,  viewed 
simply  by  themselves,  and  as  destitute  of  any  super- 
natural element,  anything  like  an  adequate  explana- 
tion of  the  latter?  If  Jesus  was  only  a  Jewish 
artisan,  who  died  at  thirty-three,  how  could  His  life- 
record  have  thus  revolutionized  all  history  ?  We  are 
commonly  supposed  in  these  days  and  in  this  country 


Vol.  II.,  p.  8,  quoted  in  Row's  Bampton  Lecture,  p.  96. 


42 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


to  live  more  in  a  brief  time  than  the  ancients  did  in 
one  that,  reckoned  by  days  and  years,  was  longer. 
But  which  of  those  who  have  done  anything  to 
shape  the  course  of  our  history  would  have  had  even 
the  opportunity  of  doing  so  if  he  had  died  at  the 
age  of  thirty-three  ?  Not  Washington,  not  Webster, 
not  Lincoln.  No  matter,  therefore,  what  a  man's  other 
advantages  may  be  ;  nay,  even  in  connection  with  the 
highest  human  advantages,  a  sufficiently  long  term  of 
life  must  be  recognized  as  essential  to  the  exercise  by 
him  of  such  an  influence  as  shall  make  its  mark  deep 
and  permanent  on  the  character  and  history  of  a 
nation,  much  more  of  the  world.  How,  then,  shall  we 
explain  the  fact  that  the  mightiest  regenerative 
force  which  has  been  exerted  on  our  race  came  out 
of  a  life  which  was  cut  off  almost  in  youth,  and 
whose  public  work  was  performed  in  the  space  of 
three  years  and  a  half  ?  From  the  distinctive  charac- 
ter of  the  effects  produced  by  it,  I  am  warranted  in 
concluding  that  there  was  something  peculiar  and 
unique  in  the  personality  of  Him  by  whom  they 
were  produced.  They  are  such  effects,  not  only 
in  degree,  but  in  kind,  as  no  other's  man's  life  before 
or  since,  save  as  connected  with  His,  has  generated. 
They  have  amounted,  on  Mr.  Lecky's  own  showing, 
to  a  regeneration  of  mankind,  and  therefore  I  am 
compelled  to  infer  that  He  who  is  the  regenerator  of 
men  is  something  more  than  a  man.      There  must 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


43 


have  been  more  in  Him  than  in  the  race,  else  He 
could  not  have  thus  told  upon  the  race.  Water  can- 
not rise  above  its  source  ;  immorality  cannot  pro- 
duce morality ;  that  which  is  hastening  to  decay  can- 
not renew  itself,  and  its  renewal  must  be  the  result 
of  the  introduction  into  it  of  something  higher, 
nobler,  and  more  powerful  than  itself. 

The  force  of  these  considerations  has  been  felt  even 
by  those  who  have  refused  to  recognize  anything  like 
a  divine  element  in  Jesus ;  and  some  of  them  have 
sought  to  account,  on  merely  natural  principles,  for 
the  remarkable  effects  which  we  have  described. 
Thus  Gibbon,  in  his  celebrated  fifteenth  chapter,  has 
enumerated  five  secondary  causes  (intending,  however, 
that  his  readers  should  recognize  them  as  primary) 
for  the  rapid  diffusion  and  wide  acceptance  of  Chris- 
tianity. These,  as  all  of  you  must  know,  were  the 
inflexible  zeal  of  the  Christians,  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life,  the  miraculous  powers  ascribed  to  the 
primitive  Church,  the  pure  and  austere  morals  of  the 
Christians,  and  the  union  and  discipline  of  the  Chris- 
tian republic.  But  all  these,  with  the  exception  of 
the  third  —  the  miraculous  powers  ascribed  to  the 
primitive  Church — are  themselves  effects  which  need 
to  be  accounted  for,  and  so  the  admission  of  their 
operation  does  not  at  all  lessen  the  difficulty  ;  while  in 
regard  to  the  third,  it  may  be  said  that,  if  the  miracu- 
lous powers  ascribed  to  the  primitive  Church  were 


44  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

real,  they  lead  back  to  the  miraculous  in  Christ ;  but 
if  they  were  false,  we  have  the  palpable  absurdity, 
not  to  say  impossibiUty,  of  ascribing  pure  and  austere 
morals  to  the  adherents  of  a  system  founded  on  de- 
ception. Very  evidently,  therefore,  these  secondary 
causes  are  not  adequate  to  solve  the  problem. 

Mr.  Mill,  again,  is  satisfied  with  the  affirmation 
that  the  genius  and  moral  qualities  of  Jesus  are 
sufficient  to  account  for  all  the  effects  which  we  have 
described.  Here  are  his  words,  and  very  remarkable 
words  they  are  as  coming  from  him :  "  About  the 
life  and  sayings  of  Jesus  there  is  a  stamp  of  personal 
originality  combined  with  profundity  of  insight, 
which,  if  we  abandon  the  idle  expectation  of  finding 
scientific  precision,  where  something  very  different 
was  aimed  at,  must  place  the  prophet  of  Nazareth, 
even  in  the  estimation  of  those  who  have  no  belief 
in  His  inspiration,  in  the  very  first  rank  of  the  men 
of  sublime  genius  of  whom  our  species  can  boast. 
When  this  pre-eminent  genius  is  combined  with  the 
qualities  of  probably  the  greatest  moral  reformer  and 
martyr  to  that  mission  who  ever  existed  upon  earth, 
religion  cannot  be  said  to  have  made  a  bad  choice  in 
pitching  on  this  man  as  the  ideal  representative  and 
guide  of  humanity ;  nor  even  now  would  it  be  easy, 
even  for  an  unbeliever,  to  find  a  better  translation  of 
the  rule  of  virtue  from  the  abstract  into  the  concrete, 
than  to  endeavor  so  to  live  that  Christ  would  approve 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


45 


our  life."  "^  But,  I  submit,  that  it  is  not  possible  to 
go  so  far  as  this,  without,  for  the  sake  of  logical  con 
sistency,  going  much  farther.  For  genius  alone  will 
not  account  for  the  effect  which  even  Mr.  Mill  recog- 
nizes was  produced  on  men  by  the  life  of  Christ ;  no, 
not  even  when  it  is  allied  with  the  qualities  of  a  moral 
reformer  and  a  martyr.  Even  if  we  admit  that  such 
genius  as  Jesus  possessed  is  not  itself  the  very  thing 
to  be  accounted  for,  considering  the  surroundings  of 
his  youth  and  manhood,  it  remains  a  fact  that  the 
world  has  never  been  regenerated  by  genius,  or 
moved  to  offer  such  homage  to  those  who  were 
dowered  with  it,  as  men  pay  to  Jesus.  Homer  did 
not  become  a  deity  to  the  Greeks,  nor  Virgil  to  the 
Romans.  No  name  of  genius  is  more  honored  to- 
day in  Germany  than  that  of  Goethe;  but  what  a 
difference  is  there  between  the  feelings  of  his  admi- 
rers toward  him  and  those  cherished — I  will  not  say 
merely  by  Christians,  but  by  the  world  at  large — 
toward  Jesus  ?  At  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Rob- 
ert Burns  every  Scotchman's  "  blood "  (to  use  his 
own  words  regarding  Wallace)  *'  boils  up  in  a  spring- 
tide flood  ;  "  but  who  thinks  of  him  as  a  regenerator 
of  society  ?  or  who  would  organize  a  mission  to  carry 
his  life-story  to  heathen  nations  ?  Probably  the  most 
cosmopolitan  specimen  of  genius  the  world  has  ever 


*  "Three  Essays  in  Religion,"  by  J.  S.  Mill,  pp.  254,  255. 


46  THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

seen  was  that  of  William  Shakespeare  ;  but  who  does 
not  feel  as  wide  a  divergence  between  his  writings, 
admirable  as  they  are,  and  these  four  gospels,  as  there 
is  between  the  electric  light  and  a  star ;  between  the 
finest  specimens  of  the  architect's  handiwork  and  the 
magnificent  cathedral  rocks  that  rise  sheer  and  high 
on  the  side  of  the  Yosemite?  for  the  one  is  human 
in  its  origin,  and  the  other  is  the  handiwork  of  God. 

Nay,  even  when  to  the  element  of  genius  we  add 
those  of  the  moral  reformer  and  the  martyr,-  we  are 
not  perceptibly  nearer  giving  any  adequate  explana- 
tion of  the  effects  produced  on  humanity  by  the  life  of 
Christ  than  we  were  before.  For  we  find  genius,  reform- 
ing energy,  and  martyrdom  all  combined  in  the  story  of 
Socrates,  which  always,  as  I  read  it,  seems  to  me  to  con- 
stitute the  high-water  mark  of  mere  unaided  manhood. 
But  what  is  Socrates  to  men  to-day  ?  what  churches 
have  been  founded  for  his  worship  ?  what  missionary 
associations  have  been  instituted  for  the  translation 
and  diffusion  of  the  Phsedo,  the  Crito,  and  the  Apology  ? 
and  who  among  the  children  of  men  is  moved  to  ab- 
stain from  doing  wrong,  or  to  persevere  in  doing 
right,  for  the  sake  of  the  son  of  Sophroniscus?  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  with  a  vast  multitude  of  mankind, 
there  is  no  motive  so  powerful  as  the  "  for  my  sake," 
from  the  lips  of  the  Son  of  Mary.  There  is  here, 
therefore,  in  the  life  of  Christ,  some  quality  that  is 
not  found  in  manhood,  as  such.    What  is  that  quality, 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST.  47 

if  it  is  not  supernatural?  What  is  it,  if  it  is  not 
Divine  ?  It  is,  at  least,  all  history  being  the  witness, 
superhuman  ;  and  yet  it  has  become  so  mighty  on  our 
race,  because  the  superhuman  operated  through  One 
who,  whatever  else  He  was,  was  also  really  a  man.  Here 
is  a  moral  miracle  which  renders  credible  the  physical 
signs  and  wonders  with  which  its  manifestation  to 
men  was  accompanied. 

But  the  force  of  this  argument  increases  when, 
looking  away  from  the  mere  surroundings  of  Christ's 
life,  we  examine  the  character  which  the  Evangelists 
have  here  portrayed.  It  is  one  of  absolute  moral 
perfection.  He  said,  "Which  of  you  convicteth  me 
of  sin  ?  ""^  And  as  we  read  the  history  we  are  not 
shocked  to  hear  such  words  from  Him,  for  they  but 
give  voice  to  the  impression  which  we  ourselves  de- 
rive from  the  whole  narrative.  His  meekness  and 
gentleness  were  only  equalled  by  His  honesty  and 
benevolence.  There  was  about  Him  a  conscientious 
thoroughness  which  was  carried  out  at  every  sacri- 
fice ;  and  so  far  from  having  that  love  of  ostentation 
which  might  be  expected  in  One  so  marvellously 
endowed,  there  was  a  disposition  to  shun  the  ap- 
plause of  popularity  and  the  blaze  of  earthly  glory. 
His  Sermon  on  the  Mount  evinces  that,  above  and 
beyond  all  other  things  in  religion,  He  delighted  in 


John  viii.  46. 


48  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

"  truth  in  the  inward  parts,"  and  held  in  utter  ab- 
horrence that  cold  and  hollow  ritualism  which  is  con- 
tent with  the  form  of  godliness  while  denying  its 
power.  Never  was  there  such  an  equipoise  of  moral 
attributes  as  we  find  in  Him.  To  an  all-embracing 
benevolence,  He  joined  a  sternness  of  principle  which 
exposed  wrong  wherever  He  found*  it,  and  insisted 
on  faithfulness  in  that  which  was  least.  But  most  of 
all,  pervading  His  other  qualities  and  shedding  its 
own  bright  halo  round  them  all,  was  His  self-sacri- 
ficing and  devoted  love,  manifest  in  the  price  He 
paid  and  the  zeal  He  showed  for  the  redemption  and 
regeneration  of  men.  Unlike  that  Socrates,  "whom 
well  inspired,  the  oracle  pronounced  wisest  of  men," 
but  who  went  to  the  house  of  the  strange  woman 
and  gave  her  advice  on  the  best  means  of  prosecuting 
her  vile  business,  and  of  winning  and  keeping  her 
friends,  Jesus  restored  to  the  woman  of  the  city  "  the 
piece  which  she  had  lost,"  and  sent  her  away  to  live 
a  life  of  purity  and  holiness.  No  dishonor  darkens 
His  name  ;  no  scandal  fastened  itself  on  His  renown. 
Before  the  portrait  which  these  Evangelists  have 
painted,  men  of  every  age  have  stood  in  rooted  ad- 
miration ;  and  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  men 
like  Lecky  and  Mill,  even  by  those  who,  however  in- 
consistently, deny  His  deity.  He  is  held  in  estima- 
tion as  the  noblest  of  men.  For  centuries  His  life 
has  been  the   object   of   the   keenest   investigation  ; 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


49 


"  through  all  this  tract  of  years "  men  have  looked 
at  Him 

"  In  that  fierce  light  which  beats  upon  a  throne 
And  blackens  every  blot ; " 

but  still  they  have  seen  in  Him,  and  that,  too,  in  a 
far  higher  sense  than  the  poet  has  employed  the 
words,  only  "  the  white  flower  of  a  blameless  life." 

Now,  how  shall  we  account  for  the  existence  of 
such  a  character  as  a  literary  portrait,  but  from  its 
historical  reality?  Even  Mr.  Mill  himself  has  made 
this  acknowledgment  in  these  words  :  "  It  is  of  no 
use  to  say  that  Christ,  as  exhibited  in  the  gospels,  is 
not  historical ; "  and  again,  "  Who  among  His  dis- 
ciples or  among  their  proselytes  was  capable  of  in- 
venting the  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining 
the  life  and  character  revealed  in  the  gospels  ?  Cer- 
tainly not  the  fishermen  of  Galilee  ;  certainly  not  St. 
Paul,  whose  character  and  idiosyncrasies  were  of  a 
totally  different  sort ;  still  less  the  early  Christian 
writers,  in  whom  nothing  is  more  evident  than  that 
the  good  which  was  in  them  was  all  derived,  as  they 
always  professed  that  it  was  derived,  from  a  higher 
source."* 

But  if  it  were  real  and  historical,  could  it  have  been 
merely  human  ?  For  now,  in  connection  with  this 
admission  of  His  moral  pre-eminence,  we  must  take 


*  "  Three  Essays  in  Religion,"  ub  sup.,  pp.  253,  254. 
3 


50  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

notice  of  certain  very  remarkable  things  associated 
with  it.  For  His  was  a  piety,  with  no  consciousness 
of  sin,  and  with  no  profession  of  repentance.  Never 
does  Jesus  confess  Himself  a  sinner ;  nowhere  does 
He  utter  a  word  of  penitence  ;  therefore  His  perfec- 
'  tion  is  of  a  different  nature  from  that  which  it  is  pos- 
sible for  any  sinner  to  attain  ;  and  knowing,  as  we  do, 
how  much  the  depravity  of  the  race  implies,  we  must 
acknowledge  that  we  have  here  a  supernatural  break- 
ing in  upon  the  course  of  human  nature,  and  must 
recognize  a  miracle  in  Christ  himself. 

Still  further,  this  moral  perfection  was  associated 
with  certain  claims  to  something  higher  than  human- 
ity. He  declared  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah.  He 
claimed  "  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.'**  He 
affirmed  that  He  and  the  Father  were  one,  and  took 
no  means  to  keep  the  Jews  from  Inferring  therefrom 
that  He  "  made  himself  God."t  He  alleged  that  He 
would  be  the  final  judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead  ;  % 
and  In  the  very  moment  of  making  the  profession 
that  He  was  "  meek  and  lowly  In  heart,"  He  gave  the 
invitation,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are 
heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest,"  which  has  In 
it  the  assumption  of  the  prerogative  of  Deity.§  He 
was  Himself  the  topic  of  all  His  discourses  ;  and  the 
"  I  say  unto  you,"  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is, 

*  Mark  ii.  lo.     f  John  x.  30-38.     %  John  v.  21-29  \  Matt.  xxv.  31 
§  Matt.  xi.  28-30. 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST.  5 1 

in  this  aspect,  not  more  remarkable  than  the  "  I  am 
the  water  of  hfe,"  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life/'  "  I  am  the 
light  of  the  world,"  "  I  am  the  door,"  "  I  am  the 
good  shepherd,"  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life," 
"  I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,"  "  I  am  the 
true  vine,"  which  give  its  distinctive  characteristic 
to  the  fourth  gospel.  Now,  how  shall  we  reconcile 
moral  perfection,  or  even  moral  excellence,  short  of 
perfection,  and  such  as  we  expect  from  a  moral  re- 
former with  these  claims  ?  Only  by  admitting  that 
they  were  true.  If  they  are  true,  then  He  is  incarnate 
God.  If  they  are  not  true,  then  He  is  not  merely  a 
man,  but  a  man  dishonored  and  debased  by  the  utter- 
ance of  falsehoods  in  matters  of  highest  human  con- 
cernment, and  so  far  from  being  worthy  of  the  homage 
of  mankind,  that  He  deserves  their  reprobation.  If 
they  are  not  true,  then  the  force  which  He  continues 
to  exert  in  history  is  incomprehensible.  If  they  are 
not  true,  then  the  mightiest  incentives  to  holiness 
have  come  from  One  who  was  Himself  a  deceiver ; 
and  the  noblest  influence  for  the  purification  of  hu- 
manity has  emanated  from  One  who,  when  He  said 
"  I  am  the  truth,"  was  expressing  either  a  delusion 
or  a  lie.  Verily  that  is  a  kind  of  development  which 
even  science  should  brand  as  an  impossibility;  but 
the  branding  of  it  thus  is  an  admission  of  the  Deity 
of  Christ,  and  so  an  establishment  of  the  credibility 
of  the  miracles  that  He  wrought. 


52  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

Still  again,  and  apart  from  the  influence  of  Christ's 
claims,  when  taken  in  connection  with  His  moral  per- 
fection, let  us  set  that  perfection  in  the  environment 
of  His  age,  and  ask  how  it  is  to  be  accounted  for. 
As  I  have  casually  remarked  already,  it  was  an  age 
of  corruption  everywhere.  Society  throughout  the 
entire  Roman  Empire  was  honeycombed  with  vile- 
ness.  The  very  worship  of  the  gods  was  made  to 
minister  to  the  lowest  passions  of  man's  nature. 
Woman  was  degraded,  infanticide  was  frequent,  and 
"  things  which  it  were  a  shame  even  to  name,"  but 
which  Paul  has  simply  hinted  at  in  that  awful  passage 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,*  were  common  in  all 
the  great  cities  at  the  time ;  while  the  very  amuse- 
ments of  the  people  were  steeped  in  cruelty,  and 
multitudes  were  "butchered  to  make  a  holiday." 
Nor  was  Judaea  an  exception,  save  in  a  very  minor 
degree,  to  the  rest  of  the  Empire.  The  revelation 
by  Moses  and  the  prophets,  indeed,  had  made  some 
change  ;  but  the  revival  under  the  Maccabees  had 
been  succeeded  by  an  age  of  luxury  and  vice,  just  as 
the  earnestness  of  the  time  of  the  English  Common- 
wealth was  followed  by  lasciviousness  unparallelled  in 
British  history  ;  for  Josephus  affirms  that  "  the  land 
was  full  of  robberies,"  and  that  at  "  no  time  of  their 
history  had  the  nation  been  more  wretched."     What 

*  Rom.  i.  19-25, 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


53 


was  there  in  that  age,  then,  to  produce  or  develop 
out  of  itself  such  a  character  as  Christ's  ?  Even  if 
we  accept  the  theory  of  development  in  history,  as 
in  other  things,  we  must  have  gradual  upward  ap- 
proaches toward  the  completed  type  of  excellence 
which  is  finally  reached.  But  where  are  these  ap- 
proaches here  ?  In  the  very  darkest  age  the  light 
appeared  ;  in  the  most  depraved  period  of  human 
history,  morally  speaking  at  least,  this  type  of  moral 
perfection  was  manifested. 

How  shall  we  account  for  that  ?  Do  not  tell  me  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  the  outgrowth  of  His  times.  Take 
Rome  before  the  advent  with  Cicero  as  a  representa- 
tive of  its  philosophy  and  statesmanship,  Horace  as 
the  popular  idol  among  its  poets,  and  Clodius  as  a 
specimen  of  its  morals  ;  take  Greece,  with  its  differ- 
ent sects  of  philosophy,  Stoics,  Epicureans,  Platonists, 
and  the  like ;  take  Judaism,  whether  as  seen  at  Alex- 
andria among  the  disciples  of  Philo,  or  in  Judaea 
among  the  formal  Pharisees,  the  sceptical  Sadducees, 
or  the  ascetic  Essenes.  Put  all  these  into  the  crucible 
of  such  an  age  as  that  undeniably  was,  and  by  what 
amalgam  known  to  men  could  these  elements  have 
produced  Jesus  Christ  ?  The  legitimate  child  of  that 
age  was  the  dilletante  litterateur,  the  amateur  mu- 
sician, the  fashionable  charioteer,  the  cruel  monster —  . 
Nero.  But  so  far  from  being  a  development  of  His 
generation,  Jesus  was  crucified  by  His  generation  for 


54 


THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 


being  what  He  was;  and  the  inscription  over  His 
cross,  written  as  it  was  in  letters  of  Hebrew,  and 
Greek,  and  Latin,  may  fitly  symbolize  the  agreement 
of  all  the  three  nationalities  in  putting  Him  to  death. 
He  was  no  development  of  His  age ;  but  instead, 
everything  true  and  noble  and  loving  and  god- 
like in  succeeding  generations  has  been  developed 
out  of  Him  ;  and  so  in  Him  a  supernatural,  super- 
human element  must  have  resided,  or,  in  other 
words,  there  must  have  been  a  miracle  in  His  very 
personality.  And  if  we  accept  that,  the  simplest 
form  of  such  a  miracle,  mysterious  as  it  is,  is  the 
Incarnation  of  Deity  in  the  human  nature  which  He 
wore. 

But  to  bring  this  argument  to  a  close,  let  me  pivot 
the  whole  question  on  a  single  instance.  The  skillful 
naturalist  can  sometimes  from  but  one  fragment  of  a 
fossil  animal  reconstruct  for  us  its  entire  organism, 
and  tell  us  of  its  abode,  its  habits,  and  its  classifica- 
tion. So  it  seems  to  me,  that  from  one  remarkable 
utterance  of  Jesus,  we  are  able  to  establish  to  all 
candid  minds  the  fact  that  He  is  God  incarnate.  Take 
then  that  prayer  which  we  find  in  the  seventeenth 
chapter  of  John's  Gospel,  and  try  to  account  on  ration- 
al principles  for  its  simple  existence.  It  contains  such 
sentences  as  these  :  "  Glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also 
may  glorify  thee :  as  thou  hast  given  him  power  over 
all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST.  55 

thou  hast  given  him.  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent."  "And  now,  O  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I 
had  with  thee  before  the  world  was."  "  Father,  I 
will  that  they  also  whom  thou  hast  given  me  be  with 
me  where  I  am ;  that  they  may  behold  my  glory 
which  thou  hast  given  me."  Now,  whence  has  come 
the  prayer  in  which  these  sentences  occur?  It  is  con- 
ceivable, but  barely  conceivable,  that  an  insane  man 
might  have  uttered  the  phrases  which  I  have  quoted, 
but  then  he  who  offered  the  rest  of  the  prayer  was 
evidently  very  far  indeed  from  insanity,  and  there- 
fore we  can  not  accept  the  theory  which  would  ac- 
count for  it  on  that  hypothesis.  Again,  a  bad  man 
could  not  have  presented  that  prayer,  for  it  would 
have  been  impossible  for  him  to  have  invented  or 
conceived  the  situation  out  of  which  it  rose,  or  to 
have  produced  such  pure  and  holy  sentiments  as  are 
expressed  in  the  supplication  when  taken  as  a  whole. 
But  if  a  bad  man  could  not  have  invented  it,  a  good 
man  would  not.  For  a  good  man  on  his  knees  is  full 
of  humility,  and  the  better  he  is  as  a  man,  the 
farther  he  is  from  saying  that  he  has  power  over  all 
flesh,  that  he  gives  eternal  life  to  any  one,  or  that 
eternal  life  in  any  sense  consists  in  the  knowledge  of 
himself.  But  if  a  bad  man  could  not,  and  a  good  man 
would  not  have  invented  this  prayer,  how  comes  it  to 


56  THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

be  here  ?  It  is,  I  maintain,  unthinkable  by  a  merely- 
human  soul.  Before  it  was  uttered  by  Jesus  no  man 
could  ever  have  conceived  of  the  things  which  it  ex- 
presses. There  is  that  about  it  which  demonstrates 
that  he  who  uttered  it  was  more  than  man.  It  car- 
ries on  it  the  indication  that  it  came  out  of  a  unique 
personality ;  it  bears  the  impress  of  the  Incarnation 
on  its  face,  and  proves  that  he  who  offered  it  was 
both  really  God  and  truly  man.  I  maintain  that  it  is 
impossible  to  account  for  its  existence  on  any  other 
principle,  and  thus  the  chapter  which  is  composed  by 
it,  may  well  be  called  the  Holy  of  HoHes  of  the  Gos- 
pel, for  it  shows,  indeed,  the  radiance  of  the  shechi- 
nah  glory,  which  in  symbol  was  over  the  ancient  ark, 
but  in  reality  abode  in,  and  shone  through,  the  person 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

Now,  these  different  lines  of  argument  which  I 
have  prosecuted  may  be  thus  summed  up.  Taking 
the  life  of  Christ  in  its  external  surroundings,  and  in 
connection  with  its  influence  on  humanity  at  large ; 
taking  the  moral  perfection  of  Christ  in  connection 
with  the  claims  which  He  put  forth,  and  with  the  ut- 
ter immorality  of  the  age  in  which  He  appeared ;  tak- 
ing the  fabric  of  the  prayer  which  we  have  just  been 
considering  in  connection  with  the  question,  how  it 
came  into  existence,  we  have  a  series  of  problems 
presented,  for  which  no  adequate  natural  explanation 
can  be  found  ;  but  which  are  at  once  fully  and  per- 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  CHRIST.  57 

fectly  accounted  for  on  the  hypothesis,  put  forth  in 
the  proem  of  John's  gospel,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is 
''  the  word  made  flesh  ;  "  or,  in  other  words,  INCARNATE 
God.  That  key  fits  every  ward  in  the  lock  ;  no  other 
can  be  got  to  enter  it  all,  and  so  on  the  principles  of 
the  Inductive  Philosophy  itself,  we  have  a  right  to 
hold  that  marvellous,  mysterious,  miraculous  as  it  is, 
that  is  the  true  solution. 

But  now,  when  we  have  accepted  that,  behold  hew 
the  miracles  of  these  narratives  fall  into  their  proper 
places,   and  are  seen  to  be  the  natural   accompani- 
ments of  the  greater  moral  miracle  in  Christ  himself. 
If  He  is  God,  we  cannot  wonder  that  He  trod  the 
waves  in  triumph ;  commanded  the  winds  into  peace ; 
multiplied  the  loaves  and  fishes ;  healed  the  sick ;  and 
raised  the  dead.     For  these  ''  signs "  to  us  are  only 
"works"  to  God.     That  which  is  supernatural  to  us 
is  just  as  easy  to  Him  as  is  the  upholding  of  the  reg- 
ular course  of  nature.     We  have  in  Him,  taken  as  the 
God-man,  a  cause  adequate  to  the  production  of  such 
effects;  and  we  have  in  the  fact  of  His  appearing 
among  men  as  their  Redeemer  an  occasion  worthy  of 
their  manifestation.      The  one  great  miracle  is  the 
Incarnation,  and  that  once  accepted,  everything  else 
in  the  narratives  of  the  Gospel  becomes  natural,  and 
only  what   in   the   circumstances   might   have   been 
expected. 

I  conclude  in  the  words  of  Bushnell,  which  sum  up 
3* 


58  THE  SUPERNA  TURAL  IN  CHRIST. 

the  substance  of  what  I  have  been  trying  to  say: 
"  If  the  miracles,  if  revelation  itself  cannot  stand 
upon  the  superhuman  character  of  Jesus,  then  let  it 
fall.  If  that  character  does  not  contain  all  truth  in 
itself,  then  let  there  be  no  truth.  If  there  is  any- 
thing worthy  of  belief  not  found  in  this,  we  may  well 
consent  to  live  and  die  without  it.  Before  this  sov- 
ereign light,  streaming  out  from  God,  the  deep  ques- 
tions and  dark  surmisings  and  doubts  unresolved, 
which  make  a  night  so  gloomy  and  terrible  about  us, 
hurry  away  to  their  native  abyss.  God,  who  com- 
manded the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined 
in  our  hearts  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  to 
the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  it 
is  that  has  conquered  the  assaults  of  doubt  and  false 
learning  in  all  past  ages,  and  will  in  all  ages  to  come. 
No  argument  against  the  sun  will  drive  it  from  the 
sky.  No  mole-eyed  scepticism,  dazzled  by  its  bright- 
ness, can  turn  away  the  shining  it  refuses  to  look 
upon.  And  they  who  long  after  God  will  be  ever 
turning  their  eyes  thitherward,  and  either  with  reason 
or  without  reason,  or,  if  need  be,  against  manifold 
impediments  of  reason  will  see  and  believe."* 


*  "  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,"  pp.  365,  366. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   MIRACLES. 


LECTURE  III. 

THE  CREDIBILITY  OF   MIRACLES. 

Acts  xxvi.  8  :  Why  should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible  with  you, 
that  God  should  raise  the  dead  ? 

Leaving  the  argument  of  our  last  lecture  to  stand 
distinct  and  independent,  I  propose  now,  for  the  satis- 
faction of  the  second  class  of  minds  which  I  then  de- 
scribed, to  take  up  the  question  from  the  other  side ; 
and,  beginning  with  the  miracles  and  the  testimony  by 
which  they  are  supported,  to  proceed  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  evidence  which  they  give  to  the  claims 
advanced,  and  the  doctrine,  taught  by  Him  who 
wrought  them. 

But  here  our  right  of  way  is  disputed  at  the  very 

outset  by  those  who  declare  that  no  amount  of  proof 

can  establish  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle ;  and  at  their 

head  is  David    Hume,  with   the  argument   of   that 

famous  Essay  which  has  not  been,  in  any  material 

respect,  improved  upon  by  any  of  those  who  have 

come  after  him ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  only  been 

reproduced  under  different  terminology,  even  by  the 

most  recent  antagonists  of  the  Gospel.     It   is   not, 

therefore,  a  work  of  supererogation,  far  less  a  slaying 

(6i) 


62  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

of  the  slain,  to  expose  what  I  believe  to  be  its  utter 
sophistry,  and  so  establish  our  right  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  testimony  which  he  deliberately  refuses 
to  admit  into  the  case. 

I  begin  with  reproducing,  mainly  in  Hume's  own 
words,  the  argument  itself :  "  Experience  is  our  only 
guide  in  reasoning  concerning  matters  of  fact,"*  Ex- 
perience is  in  some  things  variable,  in  some  things 
uniform.  A  variable  experience  gives  rise  only  to  a 
probability ;  a  uniform  experience  amounts  to  a  proof. 
Probability  always  supposes  an  opposition  of  experi- 
ments and  observations,  where  the  one  side  is  found 
to  overbalance  the  other,  and  to  produce  a  degree  of 
evidence  proportioned  to  the  superiority.f  In  such 
cases  we  must  balance  the  opposite  experiments,  and 
deduct  the  lesser  number  from  the  greater,  in  order 
to  know  the  exact  force  of  the  superior  evidence.^ 
Our  assurance  in  regard  to  any  species  of  reasoning 
which  is  derived  from  the  reports  of  eye-witnesses, 
*'  is  derived  from  no  other  principle  than  our  observa- 
tion of  the  veracity  of  human  testimony,  and  of  the 
usual  conformity  of  facts  to  the  reports  of  witnesses. "§ 
But  "  suppose  that  the  fact  which  the  testimony  en- 
deavors to  establish,  partakes  of  the  extraordinary  and 
the  marvellous ;  in  that  case,  the  evidence  resulting 
from  the  testimony,  admits  of  a  diminution,  greater 


*  Hume's  Essays,  Green  and  Grose's  edition,  1875,  Vol.  II.  p.  89. 
f  Ibid.,  pp.  90,  91.  %  Ibid.,  p.  90.  §  Ibid.,  p.  90. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  63 

or  less,  in  proportion  as  the  fact  is  more  or  less  unu- 
sual. The  reason  why  we  place  any  credit  in  witnesses 
and  historians-,  is  not  derived  from  any  connection 
which  we  perceive  a  priori,  between  testimony  and 
reality,  but  because  we  are  accustomed  to  find  a  con- 
formity between  them.  But  when  the  fact  attested  is 
such  an  one  as  has  seldom  fallen  under  our  observa- 
tion, here  is  a  contest  of  two  opposite  experiences,  of 
which  the  one  destroys  the  other,  as  far  as  its  force 
goes,  and  the  superior  can  only  operate  in  the  mind 
by  the  force  which  remains."*  Further,  if  the  fact 
affirmed  by  the  witnesses,  "  instead  of  being  only 
marvellous  is  really  miraculous,"  and  if  besides  "  the 
testimony,  considered  apart  and  in  itself  amounts  to 
an  entire  proof ;  in  that  case,  there  is  proof  against 
proof,  of  which  the  strongest  must  prevail,  but  still 
with  a  diminution  of  its  force,  in  proportion  to  that 
of  its  antagonist.  A  miracle  is  a  violation  of  the  laws 
of  nature ;  and  as  a  firm  and  unalterable  experience 
has  established  these  laws,  the  proof  against  a  miracle, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  fact,  is  as  entire  as  any 
argument  from  experience  can  possibly  be  imagined."f 
Nothing  is  esteemed  a  miracle,  if  it  ever  happened  in 
the  common  course  of  nature.  It  is  no  miracle  that  a 
man  seemingly  in  good  health  should  die  on  a  sudden ; 
because  such  a  kind  of  death,  though  more  unusual 

*Ibid.,  pp.  91,  92.  f  Ibid.,  p.  93. 


64  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

than  any  other,  has  yet  been  frequently  observed  to 
happen.  But  it  is  a  miracle,  that  a  dead  man  should 
come  to  life,  because  that  has  never  been  observed-  in 
any  age  or  country.  There  must,  therefore,  be  a  uniform 
experience  against  every  miraculous  event,  otherwise 
the  event  would  not  merit  that  appellation.  And  as 
an  uniform  experience  amounts  to  a  proof,  there  is 
here  a  direct  and  full  proof  from  the  nature  of  the 
fact,  against  the  existence  of  any  miracle,  nor  can 
such  a  proof  be  destroyed,  or  the  miracle  rendered 
credible,  but  by  an  opposite  proof,  which  is  superior. 
The  plain  consequence  is,  that  no  testimony  is  suffi- 
cient to  establish  a  miracle,  unless  the  testimony  be  of 
such  a  kind  that  its  falsehood  would  be  more  miracu- 
lous than  the  fact  which  it  endeavors  to  establish ;  and 
even  in  that  case,  there  is  a  mutual  destruction  of 
arguments,  and  the  superior  only  gives  us  an  assur- 
ance suitable  to  that  degree  of  force  which  remains 
after  deducting  the  inferior.f  ^'  It  is  nothing  strange 
that  men  should  lie  in  all  ages ;  ":|:  so  that  he  affirms 
that  "  the  knavery  and  folly  of  men  are  such  common 
phenomena,  that  I  should  rather  believe  the  most 
extraordinary  events  to  arise  from  their  concurrence, 
than  admit  "§  of  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature. 


*  Observe  how  here,  in  the  very  midst  of  his  argument,  he  takes 
for  granted  that  a  miracle  has  never  happened, 
f  Hume's  Essays,  as  before,  Vol.  IL,  pp.  93,  94. 
X  Ibid.,  p.  97.  §  Ibid.,  p.  106. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  65 

He  then  goes  on  to  allege  that  no  miracle  has  been 
found  in  all  history  so  attested  as  to  secure  us  from 
the  operation  of  delusion ;  that  the  passions  of  sur- 
prise and  wonder  arising  from  miracles,  being  in  them- 
selves agreeable,  dispose  men  to  believe  them ;  that 
miraculous  relations  chiefly  abound  among  ignorant 
and  barbarous  nations;  and  that  such  miracles  as 
those  alleged  to  be  performed  by  Vespasian,  by  St. 
Francis  Assisi,  and  on  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris,  have 
been  generally  discredited  ;  and  so,  with  a  pretence  of 
respect  for  "  our  most  holy  religion,"  which  is  *'  founded 
on  faith,"  and  with  no  examination  whatever  of  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  he  concludes  by  consigning  the 
Pentateuch  and  all  its  miracles  to  the  limbo  of  lies ; 
and  by  the  sneering  paradox,  "  that  the  Christian  re- 
ligion not  only  was  at  first  attended  with  miracles, 
but  even  at  this  day  cannot  be  believed  by  any  reason- 
able being  without  one,"  since  "  mere  reason  is  insuf- 
ficient to  convince  us  of  its  veracity.""^ 

This  argument,  as  those  acquainted  with  the  other 
writings  of  its  author  must  well  know,  has  its  roots  in 
that  philosophy  of  which  he  v/as  at  once  the  founder 
and  the  expositor.  He  traced  all  our  knowledge  to 
sensation,  so  that  in  his  belief  nature  could  be  known 
only  through  the  senses,  while  he  eliminated  all  no- 
tion of  power  from  causation,  by  defining  the  relation 


*  Ibid.,  p.  108. 


(£  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

between  cause  and  effect  to  be  nothing  more  than 
that  of  the  invariable  sequence  of  the  consequent  to 
the  antecedent.  In  this  way  neither  spirit  nor  force 
had  any  place  in  the  universe  as  he  understood  it.  He 
never  called  himself  an  atheist,  indeed ;  but  if  he  was 
a  Theist  at  all,  it  was  after  the  ancient  Epicurean  fash- 
ion, for  his  God  was  only  an  ornamental  appendage  to 
the  material  system,  having  as  little  to  do  with  the 
origination  and  government  of  the  world,  as  the  figure- 
head has  had  with  the  building  or  has  with  the  manage- 
ment of  the  ship.  It  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  that 
with  these  radical  convictions,  he  denied  the  possibility 
of  proving  miracles  ;  for  it  is  self-evident  that  no  testi- 
mony can  establish  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle — not 
as  a  violation  of  a  law  of  nature,  for  that  definition 
we  repudiate,  but  as  a  work  performed  by  God  out  of 
the  usual  course  of  nature — to  a  man  who  does  not 
first  believe,  on  independent  grounds,  that  there  is  a 
God  to  perform  it.  The  force  of  evidence  depends 
not  simply  on  its  own  clearness  and  volume,  but  also 
on  the  degree  of  intelligence  possessed,  and  the  nature 
of  the  opinions  held  already  by  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed.  The  inference  from  one  of  our  Saviour's 
own  parables  might  have  prepared  us  for  such  an 
argument,  for  He  says:  "If  they  believe  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded 
though  one  went  unto  them  from  the  dead."  Miracles 
and  the  proof  of  miracles,  were  not  meant  to  convince 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  ^y 

atheists.  As  we  saw  in  our  first  lecture,  they  pre- 
suppose and  postulate  the  personal  existence  and  om- 
nipresent agency  of  God ;  and  we  need  not  be  sur- 
prised that  a  philosophy  which  has  no  working  place 
for  God,  though  in  theory  it  may  still  believe  in  Him, 
should  refuse  even  to  look  at  the  evidence  in  behalf 
of  miracles. 

That  I  am  not  wrong  in  tracing  thus  Hume's  argu- 
ment against  miracles  to  his  Philosophy  will  be 
evident  from  the  different  disposition  shown  on  this 
subject,  by  his  great  predecessor,  John  Locke,  whose 
system,  erroneous  in  some  respects  as  it  was,  still 
recognised  the  spiritual  nature  of  man,  and  the  ex- 
istence and  active  agency  of  God.  Accordingly,  he 
has  written  thus  \^  "  Though  the  common  experience 
and  ordinary  course  of  things  have  justly  a  mighty 
influence  on  the  minds  of  men  to  make  them  give  or 
refuse  credit  to  anything  proposed  to  their  belief, 
yet  there  is  one  case  wherein  the  strangeness  of  the 
fact  lessens  not  the  assent  to  a  fair  testimony  given 
of  it.  For  when  such  supernatural  events  are  suita- 
ble to  ends  aimed  at  by  Him  who  has  power  to 
change  the  course  of  nature,  then  under  such  circum- 
stances they  may  be  fitter  to  procure  belief  by  how 
much  the  more  they  are  beyond  or  contrary  to  obser- 
vation.    This  is  the  proper  case  of  miracles,  which 


*  "Essay  concerning  Human  Understanding."     B.   4,   ch.    16, 
sec.  13. 


68  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

well  attested,  do  not  only  find  credit  themselves,  but 
give  it  to  other  truths  which  need  confirmation." 
Thus  a  man's  philosophy  will  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously determine  his  attitude  toward  testimony,  and 
so  they  who  hold  that  there  is  a  spiritual  power  in 
man,  and  that  there  is  a  personal  God  in  the  universe, 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  giving  assent  to  appropriate 
testimony  in  behalf  of  miracles ;  for  the  experience 
of  their  own  power  over  physical  nature  will  have 
prepared  them  to  ascribe  similar  power  on  fitting  oc- 
casions to  the  God  of  all. 

But  Hume  did  not,  in  so  many  words,  deny  the 
possibility  of  miracles.  He  was  content  with  seeking 
to  establish  the  impossibility  of  proving  that  such 
things  had  ever  occurred.  And  here,  too,  those  famil- 
iar with  his  writings  will  understand  how  he  came  to 
take  up  such  a  position.  For  he  resolved  knowledge 
into  impressions  and  ideas,  or  perceived  and  remem- 
bered sensations  which  might  be  either  lively  or  faint. 
This  was  equivalent  to  the  affirmation  that  only  that 
which  could  be  perceived  through  the  senses  and  re- 
membered as  having  been  so  perceived  could  be  an 
object  of  knowledge.  In  other  words,  knowledge  in 
his  view  is  made  for  us,  not  by  us ;  and  so  everything 
that  transcends  experience  belongs,  as  being  to  me 
neither  an  impression  nor  the  remembrance  of  an  im- 
pression, to  the  region  of  the  unverifiable  or  the  in- 
credible.    Of  this  psychology,  the  famous  argument 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  69 

of  the  essay  was  the  legitimate  issue.  But  every  one 
must  see  that  it  not  only  renders  miracles  incredible, 
but  also  makes  the  accumulation  of  knowledge,  other- 
wise than  by  personal  experience,  impossible.  It  is, 
as  one  has  well  remarked,  ''  as  destructive  of  science 
as  of  religion."  But  as  the  same  author  goes  on  to 
say:  ''If  his  psychology  is  denied,  his  logic  is  de- 
prived of  its  premises.  If  we  refuse  to  recognize  man 
as  a  series  of  impressions  and  ideas,  a  succession  of 
actual  and  remembered  sensations,  he  loses  the  as- 
sumption that  can  alone  lend  plausibility  and  force 
to  his  argument.  If  mind  creates  experience,  rather 
than  experience  mind,  the  argument  is  reversed,  the 
position  turned.  The  only  philosophy  that  can  ex- 
plain knowledge  is  the  philosophy  that  seeks  reason 
behind  and  before  sensation.  Thought  is  first,  not 
last ;  is  not  a  product  of  sensation  pure  and  simple, 
but  the  only  power  that  can  translate  and  transmute 
it  into  knowledge.  But  if  so,  if  without  the  tran- 
scendental elements  in  knowledge  the  elements  fur- 
nished by  experience  are  impossible,  Hume's  elab- 
orate proof  of  the  incredibility  of  miracles  is  but  a 
castle  in  the  air,  no  more  consistent  than  the  structure 
of  our  dreams."^ 

Leaving  now,  however,   the  principles  which   are 
beneath   it,   let   us   come   to   argument   itself.      We 


*  Dr.  A.  M.  Fairbairn  in  "  The  Expositor,"  Vol.  VIII.,  p.  296. 


70  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

cannot  read  it  with  care  without  acknowledging  its 
force.  Its  danger  Hes  in  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
sense  in  which  the  premises  are  correct,  while  yet 
they  do  not  warrant  the  conclusion  which  is  drawn. 
We  do  not  deny  that  experience  has  established  the 
general  uniformity  of  nature's  laws ;  for  if  that  were 
not  the  case,  a  miracle  would  not  be  in  any  way 
striking  or  impressive  as  a  variation  from  them. 
Neither  do  we  feel  called  upon  to  dispute  the  asser- 
tion that  our  belief  in  the  testimony  of  eye-wit- 
nesses rests  upon  our  observation  of  the  veracity 
of  human  testimony  and  that  in  the  case  of  a 
miracle,  the  proof  furnished  by  eye-witnesses  must 
be  set  against  the  proof  for  the  uniformity  of  nat- 
ure's laws,  as  far  as  regards  that  particular  occur- 
rence;  and  the  conclusion  pronounced  in  favor  of 
that  which  preponderates.  That  is  precisely  the 
principle  on  which  we  go,  in  our  investigation  of  mir- 
acles ;  and  the  position  which  we  take  up  is  this,  that 
the  testimony  of  those  who  give  evidence  for  the  mir- 
acles of  the  New  Testament  is  such  as  not  only  to 
counterpoise,  but  in  these  instances  to  outweigh  that 
which  is  given  in  behalf  of  the  uniformity  of  nature's 
laws. 

On  Hume's  own  principle,  therefore,  as  laid  down 
in  the  earlier  extracts  we  have  given  from  his  essay, 
he  ought  at  once  to  have  gone  on  to  investigate  the 
nature  of  the  testimony  borne  to  these  miracles  and 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  71 

to  see  if  that  did  not  warrant  the  belief  in  their  re- 
ality, in  spite  of  the  experience  we  have  of  nature's 
uniformity.  Instead  of  doing  that,  however,  he  has 
indulged  in  sundry  truisms  about  human  credulity, 
and  then  because  he  finds  certain  alleged  miracles  by 
Vespasian,  the  Abbe  Paris,  and  St.  Francis,  unworthy 
of  credence,  he  rejects  those  of  Christ  without  deem- 
ing the  evidence  in  their  behalf  worthy  of  a  mo- 
ment's consideration.  But  who  cares  for  such  al- 
leged miracles  as  these?  They  are  not  on  their 
trial.  It  was  not  to  undermine  behef  in  them  that 
the  famous  Essay  was  written.  The  whole  drift 
and  purpose  of  the  author  was  to  destroy  the  credi- 
bility of  the  miracles  of  Christ.  Why,  then,  has  he 
not  applied  his  principle  to  them  ?  Is  there  any  just 
ground  for  doubting  the  reality  of  Christ's  super- 
natural works  in  the  facts  that  false  pretensions  have 
been  put  forth  for  the  Emperor  Vespasian,  and  the 
Jansenist  Abb6  ?  Jesus  Christ  is  not  of  their  com- 
pany ;  why,  then,  should  He  be  condemned  simply 
on  their  account,  and  without  a  trial  of  His  own  ? 
"  If,"  says  Peter  Bayne,  "  we  suppose  a  man  of  the 
highest  character  put  on  trial  for  his  life,  informed  of 
the  law  by  which  he  is  to  be  judged  ;  then  bidden  to 
stand  aside  until  some  one  who  claims  a  distant  re- 
lationship to  him,  and  has  no  character  to  plead,  is 
tried  in  his  stead ;  and  lastly,  recalled  to  be  told  that 
he  is  capitally  condemned,  we   shall  have  no  more 


72  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

than  faintly  shadowed  forth  the  outrageousness  of 
Hume's  proceeding.""^  We  do  not  want  to  see  his 
principle  tested  on  the  wonders  on  which  he  expa- 
tiates, we  want  to  see  him  applying  it  to  the  miracles 
of  Christ. 

But  so  far  from  doing  that,  he  has  foreclosed  the 
whole  matter  by  a  very  adroit,  and  one  is  almost  con- 
strained to  add,  most  perverse  and  dishonest  begging 
of  the  question.  This  is  accomplished  by  the  skilful 
use  of  the  terms  "  experience  "  and  "  testimony,"  and 
by  the  quiet  insertion  of  one  unchallenged  word  in 
the  argument.  Let  me  expose  the  fallacy.  What 
does  he  mean  by  experience,  when  he  says,  that  it 
has  established  the  uniformity  of  nature's  laws?  If 
he  mean  by  it  his  own  individual  experience,  then 
no  objection  can  be  taken  to  his  assertion ;  but  if  he 
mean  by  it  the  experience  of  all  men  in  all  ages  of 
the  world,  then  that  is  taking  for  granted  the  thing  to 
be  proved,  for  the  very  point  in  dispute  is  whether 
the  experience  of  those  in  the  days  of  Jesus  Christ, 
who  declared  that  they  saw  His  miracles,  be  not  in 
favor  of  such  supernatural  occurrences.  This  soph- 
ism becomes  more  conspicuous  when  we  look  at  the 
word  *'  imalterahle  "  which  he  has  prefixed  to  experi- 
ence, when  he  alleges  that  an  "  unalterable  experi- 
ence "  establishes  the  laws  of  nature ;  for  if  that  ex- 


^  "Testimony  of  Christ  to  Christianity,"  p.  lo. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


73 


perience  is  unalterable  there  is  an  end  of  the  matter, 
the  subject  is  foreclosed,  and  we  are  sent  back  to  the 
denial  of  the  possibility  of  miracles,  which  we  have 
already  exposed.  Observe,  therefore,  how  conscious- 
ly, or  unconsciously,  I  shall  not  take  upon  me  to  de- 
termine which,  "  he  falters  with  the  double  sense." 
His  argument  amounts  to  this,  that  because  the  great 
mass  of  mankind  have  not  experienced  miracles, 
therefore  we  are  to  set  aside  altogether  the  testimony 
of  that  portion  of  the  race,  who  declare  in  the  most 
credible  manner  that  they  saw  the  miracles  of  Christ. 
One  is  reminded  by  this  of  the  defence  of  the  Irish- 
man, who  on  being  confronted  with  a  witness  who 
affirmed  that  he  saw  him  steal,  replied,  "  What  of 
that?  I  could  find  a  hundred  men  who  could  say 
with  truth  they  didn't !  "  That  we  should  sift  the 
testimony  with  the  utmost  care,  we  grant.  That  we 
should  have  stronger  evidence  for  a  miracle,  than  for 
an  ordinary  event,  we  are  prepared  to  admit ;  but 
that  we  should  be  asked  on  a  priori  grounds  to  refuse 
to  investigate  the  evidence  advanced  in  its  support, 
we  hold  to  be  inconsistent  with  that  inductive  philos- 
ophy, one  of  whose  first  principles  it  is  that  nothing 
which  claims  to  be  a  fact,  should  be  rejected  without 
examination. 

But  this  is  not  all.     We  have  in  this  argument  a 
comparison   of    experience   with   testimony ;    and   a 
preference   is   expressed    for  experience  above   testi- 
4 


74 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


mony,  as  if  the  two  were  radically  distinct.  But, 
again,  we  ask,  of  whose  experience  does  he  speak? 
If  it  be  one's  own  personal  experience,  then  very 
clearly  that  which  comes  under  my  own  observation 
makes  a  more  forcible  impression  on  me  than  that 
which  I  learn  from  the  testimony  of  another.  But 
the  question  recurs,  what  has  my  personal  experience 
to  do  here?  If  I  had  been  present  when  the  miracles 
were  wrought,  and  had  observed  something  differ- 
ent from  those  who  were  spectators  with  me  at  the 
time,  then  my  experience  might  be  put  against  theirs  ; 
but  as  I  was  not  there,  nothing  that  I  can  say  can 
disprove  their  statements.  It  must  be,  therefore,  the 
general  experience  of  mankind  of  which  Hume 
speaks,  and  then  the  enquiry  becomes  pertinent,  how 
can  we  learn  what  that  is  except  by  the  very  testi- 
mony which  it  is  his  object  to  depreciate.  Hence,  to 
put  the  general  experience  of  mankind  against  testi- 
mony, is  virtually,  after  all,  only  to  put  testimony 
against  testimony,  therefore  this  famous  argument, 
where  it  is  not  a  begging  of  the  question,  simply 
throws  us  back  upon  the  study  of  the  evidence  which 
has  been  given  in  support  of  the  miracles  and  asks  us 
to  determine  whether  it  be  of  such  a  kind  as  not  only 
to  warrant  our  belief  in  their  reality,  but  also  to  render 
culpable  our  unbelief. 

Indeed,  as  we  read  Hume's  Essay  in  its  entirety  we 
can  scarcely  repress  the  feeling  that  its  author  was 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  75 

conscious,  even  while  writing  it,  of  the  inconclusive- 
ncss  of  his  reasoning  here,  for,  after  all,  he  virtually 
abandons  his  ground.  "  I  own,"  he  says,  "there  may 
possibly  be  miracles  or  violations  of  the  usual  course 
of  nature  of  such  a  kind  as  to  admit  of  a  proof  from 
human  testimony,  though  perhaps  it  will  be  impossi- 
ble to  find  any  such  in  the  records  of  history.  Sup- 
pose all  authors  in  all  languages  agree  that  from  the 
1st  of  January,  1600,  there  was  a  total  darkness  over 
the  whole  earth  for  eight  days.  Suppose  that  the 
tradition  of  this  extraordinary  event  is  still  strong 
and  lively  among  the  people ;  that  all  travellers  who 
return  from  foreign  countries  bring  us  accounts  of 
the  same  tradition,  without  the  least  variation  or  con 
tradiction ;  it  is  evident  that  our  present  philosophers, 
instead  of  doubting  that  fact,  ought  to  receive  it  for 
certain,  and  ought  to  search  for  the  causes*  whence 
it  might  be  derived."  Here,  then,  on  our  philoso- 
pher's own  showing,  is  a  case  in  which  the  proof  in 
favor  of  a  miracle,  so  far  from  being  overborne  by 
the  experience  of  nature's  uniformity,  is  reckoned 
sufficient  to  establish  the  credibility  of  the  occurrence ; 
but  the  effect  of  this  admission  is  neutralized  and  the 
animus  of  the  whole  argument  revealed  by  the  words 


*  It  is  curious  to  see  how  nature,  though  expelled  with  the 
"fork "of  a  preconceived  philosophy,  will  return  in  spite  of  a 
man.  Hume  denies  causation  in  any  sense  which  makes  the  ante- 
cedent produce  the  consequent,  and  yet  here  he  speaks  of  "  causes  " 
just  as  if  he  held  no  such  theory. 


^6  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

with  which  he  introduces  the  passage  which  we  have 
first  cited :  ''  I  beg  the  hmitations  here  may  be  re- 
marked when  I  say  that  a  miracle  can  never  be 
proved  so  as  to  be  the  foundation  of  a  system  of 
rehgion.""  And  why  not?  Because  ''men  in  all 
ages  have  been  so  much  imposed  on  by  ridiculous 
stories  of  that  kind,  that  this  very  circumstance 
would  be  a  full  proof  of  cheat,  and  sufficient  with  all 
men  of  sense,  not  only  to  make  them  reject  the  fact, 
but  even  to  reject  it  without  examination."  To  all 
which  we  make  reply,  in  the  first  place,  that  cases  of 
"false  miracles,  rightly  regarded,  furnish  a  proof  that 
there  is  a  legitimate  place  for  true  ones.  There  would 
be  no  temptation  to  the  coiner  to  produce  counterfeit 
money,  if  there  were  no  such  thing  as  genuine  cur- 
rency. The  supply  of  false  miracles,  therefore,  has 
been  called  forth  by  that  principle  in  the  human 
soul  to  which  true  miracles  appeal ;  and  impostors 
never  could  have  succeeded,  in  any  age,  if  there  had 
not  been  in  man  a  belief,  intuitive  or  otherwise,  in 
God,  coupled  with  an  expectation  that  any  com- 
munication which  He  should  make  to  the  human 
race  would  be  accompanied  by  supernatural  mani- 
festations. And  in  the  second  place,  we  answer,  that 
however  credulous  men  in  other  ages  may  have  been, 
such  a  charge  can  hardly  be  legitimately  advanced 


Essays  as  before,  Vol.  II.,  p.  105. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  yj 

against  those  who  lived,  and  were  the  leaders  of  pub- 
lic opinion  in  the  days  of  Jesus  Christ.  Morally  de- 
graded, indeed,  as  we  have  seen  they  were ;  but  they 
were  intellectually  possessed  of  the  highest  culture  of 
which  the  ancient  world  could  boast.  Pilate's  '^  what 
is  truth  ?  "  does  not  indicate  a  credulous,  but  rather 
a  sceptical  mind,  and  we  may  not  forget  that  the 
Sadducees  were  as  likely  to  suspect  and  detect  im- 
posture, as  any  of  our  modern  savants.  Indeed  this 
constant  ascription  of  credulity  to  the  age  in  which 
Christianity  took  its  rise  is  altogether  inconsistent 
with  the  facts  of  the  case,  for  wherever  credulity  and 
superstition  were  found  by  the  apostles,  these  were 
not  the  friends,  but  the  enemies  of  Christianity ;  and 
as  we  see  from  the  cases  of  Simon  Magus,  and  the 
Cyprian  Elyphas,  the  Gospel  was  the  means  of  expos- 
ing the  deceptions  of  those  who  used  curious  arts, 
and  so  of  delivering  men  from  their  deluding  power. 
Moreover,  every  scholar  must  admit  the  force  of 
Professor  Fisher's  words  when  he  says  :  ''  We  have 
only  to  remember  how  Aristotle's  writings  had  been 
for  more  than  three  centuries  familiar  to  educated 
men ;  how  Thucydides,  a  century  earlier,  had  illus- 
trated the  historical  spirit ;  how  Epicureanism,  with 
its  bare  recognition  of  the  existence  of  God,  united 
with  contempt  for  the  doctrine  of  a  special  Providence, 
was  the  prevailing  philosophy ;  how  Roman  law  was 
administered    throughout   the    civilized   world ;   how 


78  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

the  philosophical  treatises  of  Cicero  exhibit  the  utter 
infidelity  as  to  the  mythological  religion  of  the 
statesmen  of  the  time ;  how  a  man  like  Julius  Caesar 
could  avow  in  the  Roman  Senate,  without  protest  or 
contradiction,  his  disbelief  in  the  existence  of  the 
soul  after  death ;  how  antagonists  of  Christianity  like 
Lucian  and  Celsus,  treated  its  claim  as  to  miracles, 
we  have  only  to  remember  such  facts  as  these,  in 
order  to  be  assured  that  the  intellectual  state  of  the 
ancient  world  was  one  far  removed  from  childish 
credulity."* 

But  while  the  qualification  laid  down  by  Hume 
against  admitting  the  evidence  for  a  miracle  so  as  to 
be  the  foundation  of  a  system  of  religion,  can  be  thus 
easily  removed,  the  very  fact  that  he  makes  such  a 
limitation  is  an  illustration  of  the  spirit  by  which 
he  was  actuated ;  yet  there  is  no  logic  in  a  strong 
epithet,  and  I  leave  you  to  characterize  it  for  your- 
selves. 

The  force  of  the  objections  to  which  this  formida- 
ble argument  is  liable,  on  logical  grounds,  has  been 
admitted  even  by  Professor  Huxley  in  his  recent 
treatise  on  the  philosophy  of  Hume,  and  he  has 
sought  to  relieve    it  of  its  encumbrances  by  admit- 


*  "  Essays  on  the  Supernatural  Origin  of  Christianity,"  by  George 
P.  Fisher,  D.D  ,  p.  604. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  yg 

ting  the  possibility  of  the  occurrences  which  have 
been  called  miracles,  and  even  the  possibility  of 
establishing  by  good  and  credible  testimony  the  fact 
that  such  occurrences  have  happened ;  while  he  denies 
that  there  is,  eveji  in  them,  any  proof  of  supernatural 
causation.  Here  are  his  words:  ''The  day-fly  has 
better  grounds  for  calling  a  thunder-storm  super- 
natural, than  has  man,  with  his  experience  of  an  in- 
finitesimal fraction  of  duration,  to  say  that  the  most 
astonishing  event  that  can  be  imagined  is  beyond 
the  scope  of  natural  causes,""^  and  that  is  only  a  very 
rhetorical  manner  of  saying  what  Baden  Powell  af- 
firmed, when  he  said  that  "  no  testimony  can  reach 
to  the  supernatural ;  testimony  can  apply  only  to  ap- 
parent sensible  facts ;  testimony  can  only  prove  an 
extraordinary  and  perhaps  inexplicable  occurrence  or 
phenomenon,  but  (the  affirmation)  that  it  is  due  to 
supernatural  causes  is  entirely  dependent  on  the  pre- 
vious belief  and  assumption  of  the  parties."t  That 
is  to  say,  if  I  am  a  believer  in  the  personal  existence 
and  omnipresent  agency  of  God  already,  I  will  refer 
these  occurrences  to  a  supernatural  power ;  but  if 
I  deny  that  there  is  any  God,  or  any  agency  in  the 
universe  except  that  which  is  natural,  if  with  Huxley 
I  believe  that  nature  is  ''nothing  more  nor  less  than 


*  Professor  Huxley's  "  Hume,"  p.  130. 
f  "  Essays  and  Reviews,"  pp.  127,  128, 


8o  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

that  which  is  the  totaHty  of  events,  past,  present, 
and  to  come,""^  I  shall  regard  these  events  as  due  to 
some  law  which  I  have  not  yet  discovered. 

With  this  alternative  I  might  well  be  content  to 
leave  the  case ;  but  I  cannot  forbear  adding,  that  if 
we  once  admit  that  the  facts  as  described  in  the  New 
Testament  have  occurred,  it  seems  to  me  that  unless  we 
have  atheistic  preconceptions,  we  must  acknowledge 
that  they  were  due  to  the  power  of  God.  And  the 
triumphs  of  our  modern  scientific  men  help  us  to 
that  conclusion,  rather  than  hold  us  back  from  it. 
For,  in  the  discovery  of  agents  formerly  unknown  in 
the  world,  they  have  come  upon  none  which  can  give 
an  explanation,  on  merely  natural  principles,  of  the 
miracles  of  Christ.  It  has  been  alleged  indeed  that 
**  the  inevitable  progress  of  research  "  must  sooner  or 
later  unveil  the  mysteries  connected  with  them  all, 
but  we  can  wait  that  event  with  equanimity;  and 
when  we  reach  the  day  when  the  tempest  can  be 
hushed  by  some  wonder-working  philosopher,  and 
the  dead  raised  to  life  by  the  command  of  a  leader  in 
some  scientific  school,  we  shall  be  willing  to  concede 
the  argument,  though  even  then  a  new  miracle 
would  emerge,  and  the  question  would  become,  how 
do  you  account  for  the  fact,  that  Jesus  Christ,  a 
young  Jewish  peasant,  should,  eighteen  hundred  years 


*Huxley's  "Hume,"  p.  129. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  gl 

ago  and  without  any  scientific  instructors,  have 
known  those  secrets  of  nature,  which  you  have  only 
just  discovered? 

But,  indeed,  you  cannot  explain  these  Gospel 
miracles  on  merely  natural  principles,  without  altering 
the  facts,  or  charging  the  worker  of  the  miracles,  and 
the  witnesses  as  well,  with  deception  and  collusion, 
and  so  the  easiest,  most  natural,  and  most  satis- 
factoiy  account  of  them  is  to  accept  them  as  works 
wrought  by  God,  in  honor  of  and  for  the  authentica- 
tion of  His  Son,  when  He  sent  Him  into  the  world 
as  the  Redeemer  of  the  race.  And  in  this  last  speci- 
fication you  have  the  answer  to  the  question  so  often 
asked  by  antagonists.  Why  have  we  no  such  things  in 
these  days  ?  There  were  good  reasons  for  miracles 
then,  which  do  not  exist  now ;  for  the  Son  of  God 
was  to  be  heralded  to  men  as  such,  and  in  that  we 
find  a  motive  worthy  of,  and  an  occasion  proper  for, 
the  interference  with  the  regular  course  of  nature. 
But  the  treatment  of  this  and  other  similar  objections 
will  be  more  in  place  in  our  investigation  of  the 
argument  of  Renan,  to  which,  as  given  in  the  Intro- 
duction to  his  Life  of  Christ,  we  now  proceed. 

Here  are  his  words :  ''  None  of  the  miracles  with 

which   the   old   histories   are  filled  took  place  under 

scientific  conditions.      Observation,  which  has  never 

once   been   falsified,  teaches    us  that  miracles   never 

4^ 


82  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

happen  but  in  times  and  countries  in  which  they  are 
beheved,  and  before  persons  disposed  to  beHeve  them. 
No  miracle  ever  occurred  in  the  presence  of  men 
capable  of  testing  its  miraculous  character.  Neither 
common  people  nor  men  of  the  world  are  able  to  do 
this.  It  requires  great  precautions,  and  long  habits 
of  scientific  research.  In  our  days  have  we  not  seen 
almost  all  respectable  people  dupes  of  the  grossest 
frauds,  or  of  puerile  illusions  ?  Marvellous  facts,  at- 
tested by  the  whole  population  of  small  towns-,  have, 
thanks  to  a  severe  scrutiny,  been  exploded.  If  it  is 
proved  that  no  contemporary  miracle  will  bear  en- 
quiry, is  it  not  probable  that  the  miracles  of  the  past, 
which  have  all  been  performed  in  popular  gatherings, 
would  equally  present  their  share  of  illusion  if  it  were 
possible  to  criticise  them  in  detail  ?  It  is  not,  then,  in 
the  name  of  this  or  that  philosophy,  but  in  the  name 
of  universal  experience,  that  we  banish  miracle  from 
history.  We  do  not  say,  *  Miracles  are  impossible.'* 
We  say,  '  Up  to  this  time  a  miracle  has  never  been 
proved.'  If  to-morrow  a  thaumaturgus  present  him- 
self with  credentials  sufficiently  important  to  be  dis- 
cussed, and  announce  himself  as  able,  say,  to  raise 
the  dead,  what  would  be  done  ?  A  commission,  com- 
posed  of  physiologists,  physicists,  chemists,  persons 


*Yet  in  another  place  he  speaks  of  "  the  notion  of  the  super- 
natural with  its  impossibilities." — See  "Life  of  Jesus,"  English 
People 't>  Edition,  p.  59. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  83 

accustomed  to  historical  criticism  would  be  named. 
This  commission  would  choose  a  corpse ;  would 
assure  itself  that  death  was  real ;  would  select  the 
room  in  which  the  experiment  should  be  made  ;  would 
arrange  the  whole  system  of  precautions,  so  as  to  leave 
no  chance  of  doubt.  If,  under  such  conditions,  the 
resurrection  were  effected,  a  probability  almost  equal 
to  certainty  would  be  established.  As,  however,  it 
ought  to  be  possible  always  to  repeat  an  experiment 
— to  do  over  again  [that]  which  has  been  done  once ; 
and  as  in  the  order  of  miracle  there  can  be  no  question 
of  ease  or  difficulty,  the  thaumaturgus  would  be  invited 
to  reproduce  his  marvellous  act  under  other  circum- 
stances, upon  other  corpses,  in  another  place.  If  the 
miracle  succeeded  each  time,  two  things  would  be 
proved  :  first,  that  supernatural  events  happen  in  the 
world ;  second,  that  the  power  of  producing  them 
belongs,  or  is  delegated  to,  certain  persons.  But 
who  does  not  see  that  no  miracle  ever  took  place 
under  these  conditions  ?  but  that  always  hitherto  the 
thaumaturgus  has  chosen  the  subject  of  the  experi- 
ment, chosen  the  spot,  chosen  the  public ;  that,  be- 
sides, the  people  themselves  —  most  commonly  in 
consequence  of  the  invincible  want  to  see  something 
divine  in  great  events  and  great  men — create  the 
marvellous  legends  afterwards?  Until  a  new  order 
of  things  prevails,  we  shall  maintain,  then,  this  prin- 
ciple of  historical  criticism,  that  a  supernatural  account 


84  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

cannot  be  admitted  as  such  ;  that  it  always  implies 
credulity  or  imposture ;  that  the  duty  of  the  historian 
is  to  explain  it,  and  seek  to  ascertain  what  share  of 
truth  or  of  error  it  may  conceal.""^ 

There  is  here,  in  all  the  leading  features  of  the  argu- 
ment, an  entire  identity  with  that  which  we  have 
already  disposed  of;  there  is  the  same  absence  of 
all  reference  to  the  moral  element  of  the  question ; 
there  is  the  same  appeal  to  "  experience,"  which  is 
quietly  assumed  to  be  "  universal ;  "  there  is  the  same 
insinuation  that  the  miracles  of  the  Gospel  stand  on 
a  level  with  modern  pretensions  to  the  supernatural, 
and  founded  on  that,  the  same  refusal  even  to  investi- 
gate their  claims ;  while,  after  all,  in  the  imaginary 
case  that  is  put  before  the  reader,  there  is  the  same 
virtual  abandonment  of  the  principle  on  which  the 
objection  is  based  ;  without,  however,  let  us  do  Renan 
the  justice  of  adding,  the  same  qualifying  imitation 
which  Hume  imposed.  Still,  as  there  are  some  specific 
differences,  designed,  as  it  would  seem,  to  adapt  the 
argument  to  our  own  days,  we  may  profitably  spend 
a  little  time  in  its  dissection. 

First,  let  us  look  at  the  assertion,  that  "  observa- 

.,tion,  which  has  never  once  been  falsified,  teaches  us 

that  miracles  never  happen  but  in  times  and  countries 

in  which  they  are  believed,  and  before  persons  dis- 


*  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  English  People's  Edition,  pp.  29,  30. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  g^ 

posed  to  believe  them."  I  do  not  think  that  it  would 
be  difficult  to  find  instances  from  among  the  miracles 
of  the  New  Testament  to  which  these  words  would 
not  apply,  and  perhaps  before  I  finish  this  investiga- 
tion I  may  direct  attention  to  one  of  the  kind ;  but, 
meanwhile,  I  ask  you  to  take  notice  of  the  general 
principle  which  he  designs  to  insinuate  under  this 
apparently  harmless  statement.  He  means  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  a  miracle  would  be  more  credi- 
ble to  him,  and  should  be  more  credible  to  others, 
if  at  the  time  when  it  was  wrought  it  was  disbelieved 
by  those  who  witnessed  it.  But  is  that  true?  Would 
not  M.  Renan  himself  be  the  first  to  reject  a  miracle 
which  was  not  attested  by  the  experience  of  those 
to  whom  at  first  it  was  submitted?  Would  he  not  V  '"^ 
at  once  allege,  that  if  those  who  were  present  at  the 
time  did  not  believe  it,  it  is  preposterous  to  ask  that 
we  should  admit  its  reality?  Besides,  does  not  this 
render  it  impossible  to  establish  any  miracle?  For  it 
must  either  have  been  believed  or  rejected  by  those 
who  were  present  with  the  miracle-worker.  If  it  were 
believed  by  them,  then  our  author  is  ready  with  his 
assertion,  that  "  miracles  are  ordinarily  the  work  of 
the  public  much  more  than  of  him  to  whom  they  are 
attributed  ;  ""^  if  it  were  not  believed  by  them,  then, 
of  course,  it  would  be  said  that  the  testimony  even 


*  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  p.  196. 


86  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

of  those  who  were  present  conclusively  settled  that 
they  were  spurious.  Thus  on  both  sides  he  is  armed. 
Offer  him  proof,  and  he  replies, ''  The  witnesses  were 
credulous,  and  more  than  half  the  miracle  was  in  their 
desire  to  see  it."  Tell  him  that  those  before  whom  it 
was  wrought  did  not  receive  it,  and  he  will  immedi- 
ately retort,  ''  On  what  principle  am  I  asked  to  do 
what  they,  with  their  ampler  opportunities  for  exami- 
nation, refused  to  do?"  What,  then,  would  he  have? 
and  how  can  he  be  satisfied?  Truly  such  a  spirit  as 
this  recalls  the  Master's  words,  ''  Whereunto  shall  I 
liken  the  men  of  this  generation?  and  to  what  are  they 
like  ?  They  are  like  children  sitting  in  the  market- 
place, and  calling  one  to  another,  and  saying,  We 
have  piped  unto  you,  and  ye  have  not  danced ;  we 
have  mourned  unto  you,  and  ye  have  not  wept. 
But  Wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children."*  There 
must,  therefore,  be  some  other  course  than  this  if  we 
would  follow  wisdom. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  he  has  qualified  his  asser- 
tion, inasmuch  as  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  he 
speaks  of  the  persons  not  only  as  having  actually  be- 
lieved, but  also  as  having  been  disposed  to  believe 
them ;  and^there  is  no  doubt  a  wide  difference  be- 
tween the  two,  but  the  distinction  will  not  help  him. 
For  the  New  Testament  contains  numerous  instances 


Luke  vii.  31,  32,  35. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  g/ 

of  miracles  performed  before  those  who,  so  far  from 
being  disposed  to  believe  them,  actually  sought  out 
grounds  on  which  to  reject  them.  Of  this  sort  were 
the  opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  man  born  blind,  John—, 
ix. ;  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  John  xi. ;  and,  as  we 
shall  presently  make  evident,  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  himself.  Now,  in  the  face  of  these  and  other 
similar  cases,  it  is  neither  just  nor  reasonable  to  allege 
that  supernatural  works  have  never  been  performed, 
except  before  persons  predisposed  in  their  favor.  It 
is  quite  possible,  indeed,  that  M.  Renan  may  endeav- 
or to  escape  from  the  force  of  this  reply  by  denying 
the  authenticity  of  these  portions  of  the  sacred  books ; 
but  admitting  that,  as  he  does,  when  it  suits  his  pur- 
pose, we  cannot  permit  him  to  deny  it  when  the  exi- 
gencies of  argument  seem  to  make  it  expedient  for 
him  to  do  so.  If  the  Gospels  are  historic  in  those 
portions  on  which  he  raises  his  battering-ram  of  at- 
tack, we  should  like  to  see  on  what  distinct  principles 
they  are  denied  to  be  so  in  those  places  where  we 
erect  our  engines  of  defence.  Such  an  answer  to  our 
reply,  therefore,  would  be  to  cut  the  knot,  not  to 
loose  it. 

Further,  what  does  he  mean  when  he  declares  that 
*^  none  of  the  miracles  with  which  old  histories  are 
filled  took  place  under  scientific  conditions?"  Is  it, 
indeed,  the  case,  that  ^'  neither  common  people  nor 
men  of  the  world  are  capable  of  testing  a  miracle?" 


88  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

If  the  miracles  of  the  Gospels  (and  it  is  only  those 
with  which  these  "old  histories"  are  filled  that  we 
care  to  defend)  had  been  wrought  alone  on  substances 
with  which  only  men  of  science  are  familiar,  then  there 
might  be  some  show  of  reason  in  the  assertion  ;  but  if 
they  were  performed,  as  they  were,  in  the  region  of 
common  life,  in  which  the  common  sense  of  the  multi- 
tude is  just  as  sure  a  guide  as  the  precision  of  the  man 
of  science,  then  his  allegation  is  most  false  and  fallaci- 
ous. Take  the  case,  for  example,  of  a  dead  man  raised 
to  life.  Rightly  here  Renan  would  make  the  most 
strict  investigation  turn  on  the  question,  whether  or 
not  he  had  been  really  dead  ;  but  is  it  true  that  only  a 
commission*  composed  of  "  physicists,  physiologists, 
chemists,  and  persons  accustomed  to  historical  criti- 
cism," can  decide  such  a  question  as  that  ?  No  doubt 
the  very  fact  that  the  person  has  been  raised  to  life 
again  should,  from  its  unusual  occurrence,  dispose  us 
to  examine  minutely  into  the  evidence  that  he  had 
been  really  dead ;  but  that  is  a  different  thing  from 


*  In  his  demand  for  such  a  commission,  Renan  forestalls  that  oi 
Mr.  Huxley  in  his  work  on  Hume,  "for  a  monograph  by  a  highly 
competent  investigator."  But  in  his  supposed  case  of  the  centaur, 
the  Professor  restricts  himself  to  an  animal  appearance,  apart  from 
any  moral  purpose,  or  the  carrying  out  of  any  beneficent  design, 
and  so  fails  to  recognize  the  distinction  between  a  prodigy  and  3 
miracle.  It  is  not  by  accident,  surely,  that  all  three  writers,  Hume, 
Renan,  and  Huxley,  entirely  ignore  the  agency  of  the  individual, 
at  whose  word  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  were  performed, 
and  speak  merely  of  spontaneous  occurrences. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


89 


saying  that  we  should  have  a  special  sort  of  evidence, 
differing  in  kind  and  not  simply  in  degree,  from  that 
which  is  generally  acted  on  in  such  cases. 

An  English  judge,  some  years  ago,  in  a  trial  which 
excited  universal  interest,  laid  down  the  principle,  that 
an  amount  of  evidence  which  would  satisfy  the  jury 
in  acting  one  way  or  other  in  their  most  important  bus- 
iness concerns,  would  be  enough  to  warrant  them  in 
determining  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner, 
even  though  his  life  were  trembling  in  the  balance ; 
and  similarly,  an  amount  of  evidence  such  as  would 
justify  us  in  proceeding  to  the  interment  of  any  mem- 
ber of  our  family,  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  establish 
the  reality  of  death  in  the  case  of  one  who  has  been 
raised  again  from  the  dead. 

But  perhaps  Renan,  in  demanding  this  scientific 
commission,  may  only  wish  to  determine  whether  or 
not  the  so-called  miraculous  work  was  done  by  the 
introduction  of  some  natural  causes  of  which  the 
multitude  were  ignorant,  but  with  which  the  mem- 
bers of  the  commission  might  be  familiar.  If  this  be 
his  idea,  then  we  may  at  once  admit  that  marvellous 
things  do  sometimes  take  place,  which  careful  investi- 
gation by  competent  parties  afterwards  makes  clear; 
but  as  we  have  already  asked,  in  another  connection, 
where  is  the  scientific  explanation  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ?  The  facts  are  before  the  world,  and  have 
been  tested  by  the  science  of  eighteen  hundred  years; 


QO  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

yet  they  have  never  been  accounted  for  on  natural 
principles,  or  reproduced  by  the  most  eminently  sci- 
entific men.  If,  therefore,  science  has  detected  other 
impositions,  how  have  these,  supposing  them  to  be 
impositions,  eluded  her  vigilance?  Is  it  not  because 
they  lie  in  a  region  beyond  her  ken  ?  The  line  which 
divides  the  natural  from  the  supernatural  is  not  always 
very  easily  defined.  Yet  in  this  instance  we  do  not 
need  science  to  make  it  clear;  for,  in  the  words  of 
another:  ^' The  great  bulk  of  the  miracles  of  Script- 
ure are  distinguished  from  common  events  by  so 
broad  a  line,  that  if  we  admit  the  fact  of  their  occur- 
rence, we  cannot,  with  any  reason,  question  their 
miraculous  character.  Besides,  we  must  not  overlook 
that  the  miracles  of  Scripture  took  place  not  spon- 
taneously, but  at  the  command  of  some  individual 
man.  A  human  mouth  speaks,  and  the  blind  see,  the 
deaf  hear,  the  rigid  joint  relaxes.  Christ  says,  '  Laz- 
arus, come  forth,'  and  the  dead  man  stands  alive  be- 
fore him.  To  allow  such  facts,  and  yet  to  say  that 
they  may  have  sprung  from  natural  causes,  is  to  con- 
cede to  Christ  a  mastery  over  nature's  secrets  un- 
equalled since  the  world  began ;  which,  if  he  were  a 
mere  man,  and  his  religion  a  fable,  is  not  less  miracu- 
lous than  all  the  miracles  recorded  in  Scripture.* 


*  "  The  Miracles  of  Scripture  defended  from  the  Assaults  of  Mod 
ern  Scepticism,"  by  William  Lindsay,  D.D.,  pp.  26,  27. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  gi 

Nor  is  this  all :  are  scientific  men,  such  as  "  physi- 
ologists, physicists,  and  chemists,"  not  just  as  liable 
to  be  imposed  upon  as  others?  We  apprehend  it 
would  not  be  difficult  to  bring  together  a  list  of  in- 
stances in  which  the  credulity  of  many  modern  "  sa- 
vants "  would  appear  in  a  most  ridiculous  light,  as 
showing  that  their  prepossessions  and  prejudices  very 
largely  affect  their  conclusions,  and  make  them  act  in 
some  cases  in  a  manner  altogether  inconsistent  with 
just  principles  of  "  historial  criticism."  Besides, 
where  is  the  question  on  which  scientific  men  will 
not  be  found  ranged  on  either  side,  uttering  the 
most  opposite  things?  Let  any  one  throw  himself 
back  upon  the  records  of  important  trials  in  our  own 
land  for  the  last  ten  years,  and  think  of  the  conflict- 
ing statements  in  relation  to  poisons  and  insanity 
which  have  been  put  forth  by  one  class  of  men  of 
science  among  us,  and  if  after  that  he  be  disposed  to 
place  implicit  faith  in  a  commission  of  "  chemists  and 
physicists,"  we  shall  be  greatly  surprised.  There  are 
subjects  which  the  mass  of  the  people  understand,  to 
say  the  least,  as  well  as  men  of  science,  and  on  which 
the  judgment  of  the  community,  howsoever  it  may 
be  arrived  at,  is  more  reliable  than  theirs.*     In  say- 


*  Christlieb  reminds  us  that  the  French  Academy  rejected  the 
use  of  quinine,  vaccination,  lightning-conductors  ;  the  existence 
of  meteorolites,  and  the  steam-engine.  See  "  Modern  Doubt 
and  Christian  Belief,"  p.  324. 


92 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


ing  this,  I  mean  no  disrespect  to  the  great  body  of 
earnest  and  philosophic  thinkers  who  are  numbered 
among  our  men  of  science ;  I  only  allege  that 
they  have  not  a  monopoly  of  common  sense,  to  the 
utter  exclusion  of  the  "  common  people  and  the  men 
of  the  world." 

But  leaving  these  assertions,  let  us  look  at  the  evi- 
dence in  behalf  of  one  of  our  Lord's  miracles,  and 
see  if  we  have  not  an  amount  of  proof  which,  judg- 
ing from  the  case  which  He  has  put  before  us,  ought 
to  satisfy  even  M.  Renan.  We  say  ought  to  satisfy 
him,  for  after  all  we  feel  persuaded  that  if  every  con- 
dition prescribed  by  himself  were  complied  with  to 
the  very  letter,  he  would  yet  contrive  to  evade  the 
conclusions  which  he  seems  to  admit  would  in  that 
case  be  logically  deducible. 

Still,  that  we  may  show  that  even  on  Renan's  own 
ground  the  evidence  is  satisfactory,  let  us  take  the 
miracle  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  see  if  in  the 
main  it  do  not  satisfy  all  his  "  scientific  conditions." 
0  i  In  the  first  place,  the  disciples  were  not  looking  for 

His  resurrection,  neither  were  they  a  priori  disposed 
to  believe  it  ;*  for  though  Jesus  himself  had  repeat- 
edly referred  to  it  in  His  intercourse  with  them,  they 
had  at  the  time  misunderstood  His  meaning,  and  they 
had  afterwards  forgotten  His  Avords.     Nothing  seems 


*  Luke  xxiv.   ii 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  Q3 

more  clear  on  the  face  of  the  record  than  that  the 
resurrection  took  the  disciples  by  surprise ;  hence 
they  had  no  prepossession  in  favor  of  believing  it, 
and  so  on  this  point  they  are  witnesses  according  to 
Renan's  own  heart. 

Again,  Christ  was  really  dead.  This  is  admitted 
by  Renan  himself,  who  gives  an  account  of  the  cruci-  >s  ^ 
fixion  scene,  and  ends  with  a  strange  rhapsodical 
apostrophe  to  Jesus.  But  in  order  to  show  that 
even  no  man  of  science  need  have  doubt  on  this 
point,  we  may  simply  recall  the  facts,  that  the 
soldiers,  accustomed  to  look  on  death,  and  who  there- 
fore knew  it  when  they  saw  it,  did  not  break  the  legs 
of  Jesus,  for  they  perceived  He  was  dead  already  ; 
and  that  one  of  them,  to  make  assurance  doubly 
sure,  "  with  a  spear  pierced  His  side,  and  forthwith 
came  thereout  blood  and  water."*  Now,  strangely 
enough,  a  scientific  commission,  so  to  speak,  though 
at  the  distance  of  eighteen  centuries,  has  sat  upon 
this  occurrence,  and  has  given  a  decision  on  it  to 
the  effect  that  death  was  not  caused  by  the  spear- 
thrust,  but  that  the  blood  and  water  which  flowed 
from  the  wound  showed  that  a  very  short  while 
before,  Jesus  had  died  of  a  broken  heart. f     About 


*  John  xix.  34. 

\  See  this  subject  very  fully  treated  by  Dr.  Hanna  in  his  "  Last 
Day  of  our  Lord's  Passion,"  pp.  290,  etc.  ;  see  also  the  appendix  to 
the  same  work,  where  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Stroud  is  corroborated  by 
that  of  Drs.  Begbie,  Simpson,  and  Struthers. 


94 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


the  reality  of  His  death,  therefore,  there  can  be  no 
dispute. 

Next  let  us  look  at  the  sepulchre.  This,  as  we 
know,  was  not  a  place  chosen  by  those  who  wished 
to  have  it  as  the  best  possible  "  in  which  the  experi- 
ment should  be  made,"  but  virtually  it  was  all  that 
any  scientific  commission  could  have  desired,  for  it 
was  a  new  tomb,  in  which  no  body  had  ever  been 
laid,  and  where,  therefore,  there  was  no  possibility  of 
substituting  one  corpse  for  another;  besides  this,  it 
was  closely  secured  by  the  stone  and  seal,  and  strictly 
watched  by  the  guard  of  soldiers.  Here,  therefore, 
great  precautions  were  exercised ;  but  how  utterly 
uselcjs  they  all  were  ! 

"Hell  and  the  grave  combined  their  force 
To  hold  our  Lord  in  vain  ; 
Sudden  the  Conqueror  arose, 
And  burst  their  feeble  chain." 

In  proof  of  this  resurrection  we  appeal  to  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  saw  Him  ''  alive  after  His  passion," 
and  who  had  no  motive  for  saying  other  than  the 
truth.  He  was  really  dead  ;  they  saw  Him  afterwards 
alive,  with  such  marks  of  identity  as  made  it  clear  to 
them  that  it  was  He.  Can  any  evidence  be  better? 
To  all  this,  however,  M.  Renan  only  says,  ''  Such  was 
the  impression  He  had  left  in  the  hearts  of  His  dis- 
ciples, and  of  a  few  devoted  women,  that  during  some 
weeks  more  it  was  as  if  He  were  living  and  consoling 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  95 

them.  Had  His  body  been  taken  away?  or  did  en- 
thusiasm, always  credulous,  create  after^vards  the 
group  of  narratives  by  which  it  was  sought  to  estab- 
lish faith  in  His  resurrection  ?  In  the  absence  of  op- 
posing documents,  this  can  never  be  ascertained. 
Let  us  say,  however,  that  the  strong  imagination  of 
Mary  Magdalene  played  an  important  part  in  this 
circumstance.  Divine  power  of  love,  sacred  mo- 
ments in  which  the  passion  of  a  possessed  woman 
gives  to  the  world  a  resuscitated  God."*  Verily 
the  man  who  can  believe  that,  need  not  object  to 
m.iracles  on  the  score  of  their  incredibility. 

But  we  cannot  allow  M.  Renan  thus  to  trample  un- 
derfoot the  laws  of  historic  evidence ;  and  we  insist 
that  if  the  Gospels  be  accepted  on  such  matters  as 
he  receives,  they  be  regarded  also  as  at  least  credible 
statements  of  what  the  witnesses  themselves  have 
said  on  other  points.  Now,  we  find  that  not  "  the 
imagination  of  Mary  Magdalene  "  only,  but  the  sober 
sense  of  John  and  Peter,  the  observation  of  the  ten 
apostles  in  the  upper  room,  and  the  very  scepticism 
of  Thomas  which  was  so  thoroughly  removed,  all  go 
together  to  establish  the  fact  of  the  Saviour's  reap- 
pearance. Nor  was  it  only  an  impression  of  weeks ; 
for  Paul,  writing  at  least  thirty  years  after  the  event, 
could  say,  ''  He  was  seen  of  about  five  hundred  breth- 


"  Life  of  Jesus,"  English  Translation  as  before,  p.  296. 


^6  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

ren  at  once,  of  whom  the  greater  part  remain  unto 
this  present,  but  some  have  fallen  asleep ;  last  of  all, 
He  was  seen  of  me  also."*  Here,  then,  we  have  a 
miracle  which  took  the  disciples  by  surprise,  and  was 
performed  as  nearly  as  possible  under  scientific  con- 
ditions. All  that  is  needed  to  complete  Renan's  re- 
quirements is  its  repetition  again  and  again ;  but  as 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  itself  the  fourth  miracle 
of  the  kind  which  Jesus  wrought,  each  one  ascending 
above  the  other  in  regular  gradation  up  to  this  last 
and  crowning  one,  we  may  hold  that  even  that  is  sat- 
isfied, and  press  him  to  the  admission  of  his  two  con- 
clusions: first,  that  supernatural  events  happen  in 
the  world ;  and  second,  that  the  power  of  producing 
them  belongs  or  is  delegated  to  certain  persons. 
Without  waiting  for  any  "  new  order  of  things  to 
prevail,"-)-  therefore,  we  insist  on  it  that  he  abandon 
the  principle  that  a  supernatural  event  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted as  such,  but  always  implies  either  credulity  or 
imposture ;  and  over  against  his  treatment  of  the 
miracles  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  we  take  leave  to 


*  I  Cor.  XV.  6,  8. 

f  We  cannot  see,  indeed,  how  Renan  needs  thus  to  qualify  his 
words,  for  on  his  principle  how  is  a  "new  order  of  things"  to  be 
introduced  ?  how  are  men  to  prove  it  when  it  comes  ?  and  how, 
without  credulity,  is  it  to  be  acknowledged  as  real  ?  The  phrase, 
however,  is  valuable,  as  revealing  that  in  a  moment  of  uncon- 
sciousness, he,  like  Hume,  in  the  passage  noticed  on  a  previous 
page,  returns  to  the  common  modes  of  expression,  and  the  recog- 
nition of  the  truths  that  lie  beneath  them. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  97 

place  the  statement  of  one  of  whose  name  and  fame 
England  is  justly  proud,  and  who  is  entitled  in  this 
department  to  be  heard  with  deference.  Dr.  Arnold, 
of  Rugby,  in  one  of  those  sermons  to  the  "  boys," 
which  are  so  full  of  manliness  and  true  Christian 
nobleness,  has  said :  "  The  evidence  of  our  Lord's 
life  and  death  and  resurrection  may  be,  and  often  has 
been,  shown  to  be  satisfactory ;  it  is  good  according 
to  the  common  rules  for  distinguishing  good  evidence 
from  bad.  Thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  per- 
sons have  gone  through  it  piece  by  piece  as  carefully 
as  ever  judge  summed  up  on  a  most  important  cause. 
I  have  myself  done  it  many  times  over,  not  to  per- 
suade others,  but  to  satisfy  myself.  I  have  been  used 
for  many  years  to  study  the  history  of  other  times, 
and  to  examine  and  weigh  the  evidence  of  those  who 
have  written  about  them,  and  I  know  of  no  one  fact 
in  the  history  of  mankind  which  is  proved  by  better  and 
fuller  evidence  of  every  sort,  to  the  understanding  of  a 
fair  inquirer,  than  the  great  sign  which  God  hath  given 
us  that  Christ  died  and  rose  again  from  the  deadr'^ 


*  "Sermons  on  Christian  Life,"  pp.  15,  16. 
5 


THE    TESTIMONY 
IN    BEHALF    OF    MIRACLES. 


LECTURE   IV. 
THE  TESTIMONY  IN   BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

John  viii.  i8  :  I  am  one  that  bear  witness  of  myself. 
2  Peter  i.  i6  :  We  were  eye-witnesses  of  His  majesty. 

Having  fought  our  way  through  the  barriers  which 
have  been  raised  by  some,  to  prevent  even  an  investi- 
gation of  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  we  are 
now  prepared  to  examine  the  evidence  by  which  they 
are  attested.  For  this  purpose  we  must  betake  our- 
selves to  the  Gospel  narratives  themselves ;  nor  let 
any  one  imagine  that  in  following  this  course,  we  are 
acting  in  a  manner  that  is  either  unwarranted  or 
illogical,  for  we  are  not  now  taking  for  granted  the  di- 
vine authority  of  these  documents.  We  are,  as  in  the 
outset  I  was  careful  to  show,  dealing  thus  far  only 
with  their  credibility ;  but  even  for  the  settlement  of 
that,  it  is  indispensable  that  we  look  to  the  statements 
which  they  contain.  These  books  are  the  depositions 
of  the  witnesses,  and  as  in  a  court  of  justice  it  is  im- 
possible to  judge  of  the  credibility  of  those  who  give 
evidence,  apart  from  the  evidence  which  they  give,  so 
we  cannot  hope  to  arrive  at  any  right  conclusion  as 

(lOl) 


I02         TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

to  the  worth  of  this  testimony  without  examining  it ; 
only  let  it  be  understood  that  in  making  such  an  in- 
vestigation, we  shall  treat  it  simply  as  an  ordinary 
production,  and  build  nothing  upon  that  inspiration, 
with  which,  in  the  estimation  of  all  Christians,  its 
authors  were  endowed. 

Now,  the  first  witness  whom  we  call,  is  Jesus  Christ 
himself.  It  is  undeniable  that  He  himself  laid  claim 
to  the  possession  of  supernatural  power.  Thus,  when 
the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist  came  to  Him  in  their 
master's  name  to  ask :  '•'■  Art  thou  he  that  should  come, 
or  do  we  look  for  another  ?  "  He  answered :  "  Go  and 
show  John  again  those  things  which  ye  do  hear  and 
see :  the  Mind  receive  their  sight  and  the  lame  walk  ; 
the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear ;  the  dead  are 
raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  Gospel  preached  to 
them."*  Again,  to  the  Jews,  He  said  :  "  I  have  greater 
witness  than  that  of  John ;  for  the  works  which  the 
Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the  same  works  that 
I  do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent 
me."f  On  another  occasion.  He  expressed  Himself 
thus :  "  If  I  do  not  the  work  of  my  Father,  believe 
me  not.  But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  be- 
lieve the  works :  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  that 
the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  Him. "if     To  the  same 


*  Matt.  xi.  3,  4,  5.     Luke  vii.  19-23. 

f  John  V.  36.  J  John  x.  37,  38. 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES.        103 

effect  is  His  language  to  Philip:  "Believe  me  that  I 
am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me,  or  else  be- 
lieve me  for  the  very  works*  sake."*  And,  to  mention 
only  one  saying  more,  when  summing  up  the  guilt 
of  the  men  of  His  generation.  He  spake  in  this  wise: 
"  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the  works  which  none 
other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin ;  but  now  have 
they  both  seen  and  hated,  both  me  and  my  Father/'f 
Now  we  may  fairly  ask  if  such  an  one,  as  all  through 
these  narratives  He  is  represented  to  be,  would  make 
such  a  claim,  if  it  were  ill-founded  and  untrue  ?  Here 
are  clear  and  repeated  affirmations  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  himself  that  He  did  work  miracles ;  and  the 
question  is,  can  we  believe  Him  ?  In  answer  to  that^'^ 
enquiry,  all  that  I  have  already  advanced  for  another 
purpose,  in  my  second  lecture,  would  be  equally  perti- 
nent here.  I  might  dwell  on  the  moral  majesty  of^ 
His  character,  as  it  reveals  itself  to  us  through  the 
holy  simplicity  of  these  four  gospels ;  and  then  I  might 
ask  whether  the  falsehood  of  the  testimony  of  such  a 
witness  would  not  be  a  greater  miracle,  even  than  the 
raising  of  the  dead  to  life?  But  to  prevent  repetition, 
I  content  myself  with  this  reference  to  that  former 
argument,  and  proceed  to  look  at  the  matter  from 
another  angle. 

It  is  admitted  by  all,  then,  that  the  evidence  of  ^ 


*John  xiv.  II.  f  John  xvi.  24. 


104 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 


Jesus  Christ  is  more  than  usually  valuable  in  every 
respect,  except  when  it  bears  witness  to  the  super- 
natural in  His  person  and  in  His  works.  Even  those 
who  repudiate  the  claims  that  are  now  under  discus- 
sion, will  concede  that.  I  have  but  to  remind  you  of 
the  quotations  which  I  have  already  made  from  Lecky 
and  Mill,  in  this  regard ;  and  of  such  words  as  these, 
which  form  the  conclusion  of  Renan's  chapter  on  the 
crucifixion :  "  Thou  wilt  become  to  such  a  degree  the 
corner-stone  of  humanity,  that  to  tear  thy  name  from 
this  world  would  be  to  shake  it  to  its  foundations.  Be- 
tween thee  and  God,  men  will  no  longer  distinguish,"* 
to  convince  you  that  my  representation  is  correct. 
Indeed,  so  high  is  the  estimate  of  the  trustworthiness 
of  Jesus,  that  but  for  their  pre-judgment  of  the  im- 
possibility of  the  supernatural,  there  would  have  been 
no  disposition  on  the  part  of  these  writers  to  question 
His  integrity  in  any  respect.  Now  we  may  put  the 
case  thus :  Which  is  the  more  reasonable,  that  the 
pre-supposition  that  makes  miracles  impossible  is 
wrong,  or  that  such  a  witness  as  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  acknowledged  to  be,  was  guilty  of  impos- 
ture, or  the  victim  of  delusion?  We  are  continually 
taunted  by  our  modern  philosophers  with  preferring 
theology  to  science ;  and  it  is  supposed  that  our  prej- 
udices unfit  us  for  rightly  estimating  scientific  evi- 


*  Renan,  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  p.  291. 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 


105 


dence :  but  may  we  not  here  fairly  retort  that  the  op- 
ponents of  the  miracles  are  allowing  their  ante- 
supernatural  prepossessions  to  unfit  them  for  the  right 
interpretation  of  moral  evidence?  One  thing,  at 
least,  is  clear,  we  cannot  consistently  reject  this  testi- 
mony without  impugning  either  the  moral  truthful- 
ness or  the  intellectual  soundness  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
the  moment  we  do  that,  we  raise  these  questions, 
which  are  harder  to  solve  by  far  than  it  is  to  believe  in 
a  miracle ;  namely  :  how  came  the  purest  morality  the. 
world  has  ever  seen  from  the  heart  of  one  who  was 
himself  a  deceiver?  or  how  came  the  healthiest,  whole- 
somest,  and  most  intellectually  quickening  religion 
with  which  men  are  acquainted,  from  the  soul  of  one 
who  was  himself  a  weak-minded  and  deluded  fanatic  ? 
We  accept  Hume's  law  here,  and  boldly  affirm  that 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  to  His  own  miracles  is  of  such 
a  kind  that  its  falsehood  would  be  more  miraculous 
than  the  facts  which  it  endeavors  to  establish  ;  nay, 
that  if  such  testimony  is  to  be  set  aside,  it  will  be 
utterly  impossible  to  establish  anything  by  means  of 
human  evidence. 

Look  at  the  alternatives  for  a  moment  or  two. 
Jesus  was  either  a  deceiver,  wilfully  leading  others 
astray ;  a  victim  of  hallucination,  leading  men  after 
phantoms,'  which  yet  He  believed  to  be  truths ;  or  en- 
dowed with  moral  honesty,  and  mental  soundness. 
JNow  which  of  these  can  we  accept? 
5* 


Io6        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

Was  He  a  deceiver?  Those  who  answer  this  ques- 
tion in  the  afifirmative  commonly  allege,  that  as  the 
Messiah,  whose  advent  was  anticipated  by  the  Jews, 
was  expected  to  be  a  worker  of  miracles,  it  was  quite 
to  be  supposed  that  Jesus,  in  laying  claim  to  be  re- 
ceived as  the  Christ,  should  make  pretensions  to  the 
exercise  of  supernatural  power.  They  allege  that  He 
could  not  have  hoped  for  success,  without  conforming, 
in  this  respect,  to  the  expectations  of  the  people  ;  and 
that,  even  if  it  did  not  form  a  part  of  His  original 
plan.  He  was,  in  a  manner,  forced  to  assume  the  char- 
acter of  a  worker  of  miracles. 

But  this  theory  fails  to  take  account  of  two  things: 
the  one  in  Christ  himself,  and  the  other  in  the  Jews 
of  His  time.  It  loses  sight  of  the  fact,  that  from  first 
to  last,  Jesus  was  more  concerned  with  truth,  than  with 
popularity  or  success.  He  did  nothing  for  immediate 
effect.  He  never  pandered  to  the  wishes  of  the  multi- 
tude, or  adjusted  His  sails  to  the  prevailing  breeze. 
He  would  not  even  work  miracles  to  satisfy  a  vain 
curiosity,  or  for  merely  sensational  purposes.  His 
standard  of  action  was  the  right ;  and  He  was  always 
more  concerned  to  speak  the  truth  than  to  swell  the 
number  of  His  followers.  He  never  enticed  any  one 
to  follow  Him  on  false  pretences.  He  never  sought 
to  gain  adherents  by  dazzling  their  eyes  with  bright 
visions  of  unbroken  ease.  To  the  impulsive  man  who 
cried  to  Him  in  a  fit  of  momentary  enthusiasm,  "  Lord, 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 


107 


I  will  follow  Thee,  whithersoever  Thou  goeth,"  He 
said:  "Foxes  have  holes,  and  birds  of  the  air  have 
nests,  but  the  Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  His 
head."*  He  laid  down  the  law  of  discipleship  to  all  en- 
quirers, thus :  "  If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  daily,  and  follow 
me."f  He  desired  all  who  joined  Him  to  "  count  the 
cost  "if  of  allegiance  to  Him,  lest,  meeting  unexpected 
difficulties,  they  should  be  discouraged,  and  turn  back. 
Now  if  He  was  thus  frank,  candid,  and  honest,  with 
enquirers  when  they  came  to  Him,  is  it  consistent 
with  probability,  I  might,  indeed,  almost  say,  with 
possibility,  that  when  He  went  to  them,  He  was  so 
eager  to  win  their  homage  as  the  Messiah,  that  He 
stooped  to  deceive  them  with  magical  tricks  which 
He  called  miracles  ?  He  did  not  care  enough  for  popu- 
larity to  angle  for  followers  by  telling  them  lies  as  to 
what  should  be  their  experience  as  His  disciples ;  but 
He  did  care  enough  for  it  to  pander  to  the  appetite 
for  miracles,  by  professing  to  perform  supernatural 
works,  which,  however,  were  only  pretended  miracles, 
good  enough  as  feats  of  legerdemain,  but  really  lies, 
as  He  employed  them.  It  is  a  psychological  impossi- 
bility that  both  of  these  can  be  true ;  and,  seeing  as 
I  do,  that  all  through  His  history,  Jesus  followed  the 
truth,  careless  whether  or  not  the  crowd  followed  Him, 


*Luke  ix.  57,  58.         f  Luke  ix.  23.         J  Luke  xiv.  25-33. 


I08        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

I  hold  that  it  is  harder  to  believe  the  falsehood  of 
His  testimony  to  His  own  miracles,  than  it  is  to  be- 
lieve in  one  of  these  miracles  themselves. 

But  further,  the  notion  that  Jesus  was  a  deceiver, 
takes  no  account  of  the  fact,  well  known  to  every 
student,  that  in  the  time  of  His  appearance,  the  Jew- 
ish ideal  of  what  their  Messiah  was  to  be,  was  entirely 
different  from  the  reality  which  He  presented.  I  ad- 
mit, indeed,  that  His  person,  life,  and  work,  were  ful- 
filments of  Old  Testament  prophecies  ;  but  then  they 
were  fulfilments  which  gave,  for  the  first  time,  their 
true  interpretations  to  these  prophecies ;  for  here,  as 
so  often  in  the  providence  of  God,  it  was  the  unex- 
pected that  happened,  and  Jesus  came  in  such  a  way 
as  to  prove  that  He  was  the  Messiah ;  but,  also,  in 
such  a  way,  as  to  make  manifest  that  the  notions  pre- 
vailing among  the  people,  as  to  what  the  Messiah  was 
to  be,  were  grossly  x)ne-sided,  and  therefore  false. 
They  expected  Him  to  be  a  temporal  prince,  and 
hoped  that  He  would  work  out  for  them  a  great  de- 
liverance from  that  foreign  dominion  under  which 
they  felt  themselves  so  humiliated.  Looking  now  at 
the  prophecies,  in  the  light  of  that  which  we  believe 
to  be  their  fulfilment,  we  are  surprised  that  they 
should  have  formed  such  erroneous  expectations  re- 
garding the  person  and  work  of  their  Messiah.  But 
the  fact  that  they  did  so  is  undeniable.  Even  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  themselves  nursed,  to  the  very  last 


TE  S  TIM  ON  V  IN  BEHA  LF  OF  MIR  A  CLES.        i  qq 

moment  of  their  visible  fellowship  with  Him,  the  fond 
anticipation  that  He  would  restore  the  kingdom  to 
Israel,*  and  repeatedly  the  same  view  regarding  the 
mission  of  the  Messiah  was  expressed  by  the  common 
people  in  their  intercourse  with  Him.  On  one  occa- 
sion, indeed,  after  the  performance  of  one  of  the  mira- 
cles of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  the  multitude,  roused  to 
a  pitch  of  enthusiasm,  were  for  taking  Him  by  force 
and  making  Him  a  king.  All  that  was  needed,  appar- 
ently, to  His  immediate  acceptance  with  them  was 
the  proclamation  of  His  earthly  royalty.  Still  He  re- 
fused to  yield  to  their  desire ;  and  because  He  would 
not  be  the  king  they  wished,  ''  from  that  time  many 
of  His  disciples  went  back  and  walked  no  more  with 
Him."f  Now  see  what  an  absurdity  this  one  scene 
involves,  if  we  must  write  down  Jesus  as  a  deceiver. 
In  order  to  find  acceptance  with  the  people  as  their 
Messiah,  He  wrought  what  looked  like  a  miracle,  but 
was  not  really  one,  to  feed  them  ;  but  when  tha.i  ruse 
succeeded,  and  they  were  on  the  point  of  proclaim- 
ing Him  to  be  the  Messianic  king,  He  distinctly  dis- 
claimed their  idea  of  His  royalty,  and  turned  multi- 
tudes away  from  Him.  If  He  yielded  to  their  pre- 
conceived opinions  on  the  point  of  the  miracles,  why 
did  He  not  yield  to  them  also  in  the  matter  of  the 
royalty?    And  if  He  refused  to  conform  to  their  pre- 


*Acts  i.  6.  f  John  vi.  15-60. 


1 1  o        TES TIMON  Y  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRA  CLES. 

possessions,  in  the  affair  of  the  kingship,  when  His 
doing  so  was  all  that  was  needed  to  float  Him  into 
success,  is  it  conceivable  that,  as  regards  the  miracles, 
He  should  have  made  a  claim  which  He  knew  to  be 
false,  simply  with  the  view  of  suiting  Himself  to  the 
ideas  of  the  multitude  ?  The  law  which  the  impostor 
must  follow,  is  that  which  the  poet  has  laid  down  for 
the  actor,  this,  namely :  "  Who  live  to  please,  must 
please  to  live ;  "  and  had  there  been  nothing  better 
in  Jesus  than  the  adroitness  of  a  deceiver.  He' would 
undoubtedly  have  yielded  to  the  pressure  of  the  popu- 
lace, and  raised  the  standard  of  a  new  royalty  in  the 
land.  But  that  He  so  solemnly  and  steadily  resisted 
their  importunity  on  this  head,  clearly  shows  that  He 
had  some  nobler  principle  to  guide  Him  than  the  love 
of  popular  applause,  and  makes  untenable  the  view  of 
those  who  hold  that  He  was,  in  a  manner,  forced  to 
pretend  to  work  miracles,  in  order  to  secure  the  favor 
of  the  people. 

Whether,  therefore,  we  look  at  the  honesty  of 
Jesus,  as  it  comes  out  in  respect  to  things  wherein 
the  supernatural  element  is  not  involved,  or  at  the  in- 
dependence with  which,  in  other  matters,  He  steered 
His  course  in  the  very  teeth  of  popular  prejudice,  it 
is  impossible  to  rest  in  the  idea  that  He  sought  to 
deceive  men  by  false  miracles;  and  when  to  these 
considerations  we  add  that  of  the  moral  incongruities 
involved  in  the  very  idea  of  His  being  a  deceiver,  as 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES.       1 1 1 

these  were  described  in  a  former  lecture,  we  shall  see 
reason  to  conclude,  either  that  Jesus  rightly  and  truth- 
fully laid  claim  to  the  performance  of  miracles,  or  that 
He  must  no  longer  be  regarded  as  a  pattern  of  moral 
excellence,  but  rather  as  one  of  the  basest  of  men, 
since  in  Him  the  practices  of  the  deceiver  were  united 
to  the  clearest  perceptions  of  the  right,  the  true,  and 
the  good.  If  we  admit  the  claim  to  the  supernatural 
to  be  well  founded,  then  we  have  an  entirely  homo- 
geneous character  in  Jesus,  and  everything  in  it  is 
harmonious  with  all  the  rest ;  but  if  we  deny  that 
claim,  then  we  have  in  Him  a  moral  anomaly  which 
is  more  inconceivable  in  the  department  of  humanity, 
than  a  miracle  is  in  that  of  physical  nature;  and  hav- 
ing proved  before  that  a  miracle  is  possible,  we  may 
surely  now  draw  the  inference,  that  if  such  an  one  as 
Jesus  was,  did  actually  declare  that  He  performed 
miracles,  it  is  far  more  consistent  with  right  reason  to 
suppose  that  He  was  speaking  the  truth,  even  though 
that  should  imply  the  occurrence  of  something  out  of 
the  usual  course  of  nature,  than  it  is  to  believe  that 
He  was  uttering  a  deliberate  and  predetermined  lie. 
''  I  believe,"  with  Mr.  Bayne,  *'  that  the  word  of  one 
true  man  is  surer  evidence  than  the  experience  of 
nature's  uniformity  for  a  thousand  years ;  and  that 
the  spiritual  philosophy  which  accords  this  supremacy 
to  the  deliberate  accents  of  reason  and  conscience, 
which  owns  the  majesty  of  man,  as  transcending  the 


112        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

authority  of  nature,  is  infinitely  more  profound  than 
the  philosophy  of  Hume."* 

But  if  we  can  find  no  sure  means  of  overturning 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  by  adopting  the  theory  that 
He  was  a  deceiver,  is  the  case  any  better  when  we  try 
the  hypothesis  of  delusion  ?  Was  He  a  visionary  en- 
thusiast, who  believed  Himself  to  possess  a  power 
which  He  really  had  not  ?  We  concede  at  once  here 
that  many  such  individuals  have  appeared  at  different 
times  among  men ;  but,  of  them  all  it  may  be  affirmed 
that  they  were  deficient  in  intellectual  balance,  or 
wanting  in  moral  principle,  or  that  both  of  these 
characteristics  belonged  to  them.  We  have  already 
tested  the  hypothesis  of  deceit  in  its  reference  to  Je- 
sus ;  we  have  now,  therefore,  to  ask  whether  He  had 
any  mental  peculiarity  which  rendered  it  probable  or 
conceivable  that  He  should  believe  Himself  to  be 
what  He  really  was  not  ? 

It  would  not  be  possible,  in  an  argument  so  con- 
densed as  that  which  I  am  prosecuting,  to  enter  upon 
an  exhaustive  analysis  of  the  intellectual  powers  of 
Jesus,  as  these  come  out  before  us  in  the  Gospels. 
I  may  simply  say  that  no  one  can  read  these  records 
without  coming  to  the  conclusions  that  the  mind  of 
Christ  was  pre-eminently  a  healthy  one,  and  that  His 
intellect  was  admirably  balanced.     There  is  no  evi- 


*  "Testimony  of  Christ  to  Christianity,"  by  Peter  Bayne,  p.  8. 


TESTTMON  Y  IN  BEHA  LF  OF  MIR  A  CLES.       1 1 3 

dence  of  the  existence  in  Him  of  a  morbid  exaggera- 
tion of  any  faculty  to  the  detriment  of  the  rest.  The 
speculative  in  Him  did  not  destroy  the  practical,  nei- 
ther did  the  practical  interfere  with  the  speculative. 
His  mind  as  it  is  here  presented  to  us  is  full-orbed.  In 
other  men,  no  matter  how  great  they  are  in  some  re- 
spects, we  discover  that  they  are  signally  defective  in 
others ;  but,  in  Jesus,  we  have  "  the  vision  of  the  fac- 
ulty divine  "  by  which  the  poet  is  distinguished,  and, 
along  with  that,  the  philosophic  insight  in  its  clearest 
manifestation ;  while  at  the  same  time  we  have  the 
sagacity  and  shrewd  common-sense  of  a  practical  man 
of  the  world. 

There  is  in  Him  a  wonderful  ''  harmony  of  oppo- 
sites,"  and  we  cannot  peruse  the  accounts  of  His 
treatment  of  the  different  classes  of  men  with  whom 
He  came  into  contact  without  having  the  conviction 
forced  upon  us  that  He  was  no  crazy  fanatic,  or  hair- 
brained  and  deluded  enthusiast.  In  point  of  intel- 
lectual ability  He  must  be  placed  above  Zeno,  or 
Socrates,  or  Plato,  or  Aristotle  ;  and,  in  the  matter 
of  practical  wisdom,  not  one  even  of  these  may  be 
compared  with  Him.  He  is  as  far  removed  as  pos- 
sible from  the  mere  one-sided  man.  He  looks  all 
round  every  subject,  and  sees  with  unerring  precision 
and  at  once  the  principle  by  which  it  is  to  be  settled. 
He  is  never  carried  away  by  impulse  or  moved  by 
caprice,  but   His  emotions  rise  out  of  His  judgment 


I T4        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

and  are  as  sound  as  their  source.  Even  those  who  cavil 
at  His  system  and  refuse  to  receive  it  entire,  are  for- 
ward to  confess  all  this.  Renan  has  himself  said  that 
*'  His  admirable  good  sense  guided  Him  with  marvel- 
lous certainty ;  "  that  "  His  leading  quality  was  an 
infinite  delicacy;  "  and  that  "  He  laid  with  rare  fore- 
thought the  foundations  of  a  Church  destined  to  en- 
dure."* 

Now,  we  may  safely  ask,  if  such  a  man — ^judging 
Him  at  present  by  no  higher  than  a  human  standard 
— was  likely  to  become  the  victim  of  hallucinations, 
and  so  to  believe  himself  to  have  a  power  which  He 
did  not  really  possess  ?  Recollect  that  the  narratives 
which  declare  that  He  claimed  to  work  miracles  do 
at  the  same  time  make  manifest  that  He  possessed 
what  one  has  called  "the  most  clear,  balanced,  se- 
rene, and  comprehensive  intellect  known  to  history ;  "f 
and  then  the  dilemma  appears  as  before.  Either  we 
must  receive  this  description  of  His  intellectual  char- 
acter, and  along  with  that  acknowledge  the  truthful- 
ness of  His  claim  to  supernatural  power,  or,  if  we 
hold  that  though  His  miracles  were  false.  He  sin- 
cerely beheved  that  He  could  and  did  work  real 
miracles,  then  we  must  reject  the  account  which  has 
been  given  us  of  His  mental  greatness.  We  cannot 
hold  by  both. 


*  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  pp.  io8,  207,  209. 

f  Bayne's  "Testimony  of  Christ  to  Christianity,"  p.  79. 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES.        \  j  5 

The  history  which  records  the  claim  of  Jesus  to 
work  miracles  is  at  the  same  time  full  of  illustrations 
of  His  intellectual  ability,  and  the  two  things  are  in 
absolute  harmony  as  we  find  them  there,  so  that  the 
choice  comes  to  be  between  rejecting  His  character  as 
a  whole  and  receiving  it  as  a  whole.  We  cannot  accept 
His  intellectual  pre-eminence  and  believe  in  His  hallu- 
cination ;  we  cannot  believe  in  His  hallucination  and 
accept  His  intellectual  pre-eminence.  The  choice  is 
here  again  between  the  acceptance  and  rejection  of  the 
narrative  as  a  whole.  We  must  either  cease  to  admire 
Jesus,  or  bow  down  and  worship  Christ ;  and  with  that 
statement  we  leave  this  section  of  the  argument,  sure 
what  the  verdict  of  a  thoughtful  man  must  be ;  for 
the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  will  not  lightly  be  let  go  by 
any  one  who  loves  the  true,  the  beautiful,  and  the 
good. 

But  we  call  now  the  apostles  to  give  their  testi- 
mony; and,  in  considering  what  they  have  to  say, 
there  are  two  preliminary  facts  which  must  be  taken 
into  account : 

I .  They  had  perfect  opportunities  for  investigating 
the  wondrous  works  to  which  they  gave  testimony.  The 
miracles  of  Jesus  were  not  wrought  in  secret ;  they 
were  not  "  done  in  a  corner,"  neither  did  they  re- 
quire darkness  for  their  performance  ;  but  they  were 
wrought   in    open   day,  before   enemies   and    friends 


1 1 6        TESTIMON  V  IN  BEHA  LF  OF  MIR  A  CLES. 

alike,  and  the  fullest  opportunity  of  exposing  them, 
if  they  were  forgeries,  was  given  to  the  world.  On 
one  or  two  occasions,  indeed,  none  but  the  three  fav- 
ored disciples  were  present ;  but  even  then  we  have 
every  word  established  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three 
witnesses ;  and  at  all  other  times  there  was  the  most 
open  and  undisguised  procedure.  The  daughter  of 
Jairus  was  raised  to  life,  in  spite  of  the  mocking 
scorn  of  those  who  were  perfectly  convinced  that  she 
was  dead ;  and  though  the  scoffers  were  excluded 
from  the  chamber,  the  father  and  the  mother  of  the 
maiden,  and  the  "  first  three  "  of  the  apostles  were 
present  with  him  at  the  time.  The  widow's  son  was 
recalled  to  life  at  the  gate  of  Nain,  the  place  of  pub- 
lic concourse,  and  in  the  presence  of  all  who  bore  the 
bier  and  followed  it ;  and  Lazarus  was  brought  out 
of  the  sepulchre  before  a  promiscuous  assemblage  of 
individuals,  who  had  come  from  Jerusalem  to  com- 
fort his  sorrowing  sisters. 

So  with  the  rest  of  His  miracles.  What  could  be 
more  public  than  His  feeding  of  the  multitude  upon 
the  mountain-side  ?  what  more  unconcealed  than  His 
healing  of  the  blind  man  at  the  gate  of  Jericho? 
Nor  must  it  be  alleged  that  all  these  things  were 
done  only  before  His  friends,  who  were  willing  to 
believe  anything  about  Him;  for,  even  at  the  raising 
of  Lazarus,  there  were  some  present,  who,  while  un- 
able to  deny  the   miracle,  were  yet  so  full  of  enmity 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES.        \  ij 

toward  Him,  that  they  went  and  told  the  Pharisees; 
and  when  the  blind  man  was  healed  at  the  gate  of 
the  temple,  there  was  a  judicial  investigation  into'the 
case  by  the  rulers  of  the  people.  Let  any  one  read 
the  ninth  chapter  of  John's  Gospel,  and  he  will  be 
able  to  judge  whether  it  is  likely  that  the  men  who 
could  use  such  means  as  the  rulers  employed  on  that 
occasion,  and  were  filled  with  such  bitter  hatred  to- 
ward Jesus  as  then  they  manifested,  would  leave  His 
other  miracles  unsifted.  Whatever  else  may  be  said, 
therefore,  about  the  miraculous  works  of  Jesus,  it 
cannot  with  truth  be  alleged  that  they  were  done  in 
secret,  or  that  no  proper  opportunity  of  inquiring 
into  them  was  furnished  to  the  world.  Now,  this  is 
of  the  greatest  importance,  from  its  bearing  on  the 
value  of  the  testimony  given  by  His  followers ;  for 
there  was  the  fullest  opportunity  for  investigation, 
and  no  one  can  object  to  their  evidence  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  denied  the  means  of  examining  into 
the  character  of  the  works  of  their  Master. 

2.  They  were  competent  to  judge  of  them.  On  this 
point  I  have  already  remarked,  when  replying  to  Re- 
nan's  demand  for  miracles  under  "  scientific  con- 
ditions," and  it  may  be  sufficient  simply  to  remind 
you  of  what  I  then  advanced.  Had  the  works  of 
Jesus  been  performed  on  substances  with  which  the 
disciples  were  not  familiar;  had  they  borne  any  re- 
semblance to  the  experiments  of  the  laboratory ;  or 


1 1 8        TESTIMON  Y  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIR  A  CLES. 

had  He  in  working  them  used  any  material  agent  with 
whose  properties  they  were  not  perfectly  acquainted 
— then  their  testimony,  however  valuable  it  might 
have  been  in  establishing  the  fact  that  Christ  did  the 
wonders,  would  yet  have  been  insufficient  to  prove 
that  these  wonders  w^ere  true  miracles.  But  instead 
of  this  He  employs  means  which  are  perfectly  within 
the  sphere  of  their  knowledge,  and  produces  effects 
entirely  beyond  anything  which  these  means  them- 
selves would  accomplish,  so  that  the  proof  of  a  mira- 
cle is  plain  and  conclusive.  Thus,  every  man  knows 
quite  well  w^hat  a  human  touch  can  do,  and  what  is 
beyond  its  power.  It  does  not  require  a  college  of 
philosophers  to  inform  us  on  that  matter,  for  here  one 
man  knows  quite  as  much  as  another;  but  Jesus  by  a 
touch  cleansed  the  leper,  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind, 
and  unstopped  the  ears  of  the  deaf;  and  hence,  when 
He  did  so,  there  was  a  miracle,  on  which  every  man 
of  ordinary  discernment  is  competent  to  pronounce  an 
opinion.  So  also  we  know  as  much  of  the  properties 
of  dust  and  the  human  spittle,  as  to  convince  us  that, 
in  itself  considered,  the  clay  formed  by  the  mixture  of 
the  two  will  be  in  ordinary  circumstances  useless  as  an 
eye-salve.  No  medical  man,  with  the  least  hope  of 
success,  would  ever  employ  such  a  remedy ;  yet  in  the 
case  of  a  man  born  blind,  and  well  known  in  the  neigh- 
borhood, we  have  the  anointing  of  his  eyes  with  this 
preparation,  and  the  washing  of  it  off  in  a  certain  pool, 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHAIF  OF  MIRACLES.       \  19 

the  means  of  producing  a  perfect  cure.  Let  these 
facts,  as  simple  facts,  be  but  well  authenticated,  and 
one  man  is  just  as  good  a  judge  as  another  of  their 
miraculous  character.  But  to  authenticate  them  we 
do  not  require  any  more  than  the  average  intelligence 
and  common  sense  of  men  ;  so  that  we  must  not  reject 
the  testimony  of  the  disciples,  on  the  allegation  that 
they  were  incompetent  to  examine  the  miracles,  and 
pronounce  upon  them. 

Now,  that  the  disciples  do  give  testimony  to  these 
facts,  is  patent  to  every  one  who  reads  their  narra- 
tives. This  is,  indeed,  the  reason  why  very  many  re- 
ject their  writings;  but  on  what  ground  is  this  rejec- 
tion based  ?  If  we  cannot  believe  them,  then  in  their 
case,  as  in  their  Master's,  we  have  a  choice  between 
these  two  alternatives — either  they  were  the  victims 
of  their  own  credulity,  or  they  were  themselves  prac- 
ticing on  the  credulity  of  others.  In  plain  Saxon 
phrase,  they  were  either  fools  or  knaves,  if  they  were 
not  trustworthy  witnesses. 

Can  they  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  been  the 
victims  of  their  own  credulity?  We  have  seen  that 
no  secrecy  was  attempted  by  Jesus,  and  that  the  works 
themselves  were  wrought  in  the  plane  of  their  knowl- 
edge, and  therefore  that  they  were  thoroughly  com- 
petent to  judge  regarding  them— as  much  so,  indeed^ 
as  any  common  jury  among  ourselves  is  to  deal  with 
the  evidence  which  is  generally  submitted  to  them. 


1 20        TESTIMON Y  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRA  CLES. 

Now,  with  these  preliminaries  conceded — and  I  see 
not  how  they  can  be  denied — it  follows  that  if  the  dis- 
ciples were  deceived,  they  must  have  been  the  veriest 
simpletons.  But  does  this  accord  with  the  description 
that  is  given  of  their  mental  endowments  ?  I  grant, 
indeed,  that  the  majority  of  them  were  plain,  blunt 
men,  of  little  education,  and  with  no  great  social 
position ;  but  we  cannot  harmonize  their  character  in 
other  respects  with  the  idea  that  they  were  such  im- 
beciles as  to  be  easily  duped  by  the  pretences  of  an  im- 
postor. They  had  practical  sagacity  of  the  soundest 
kind ;  and,  as  their  writings  show,  they  were  possessed 
of  intellectual  ability  of  no  mean  order.  Take  Peter, 
for  example,  and  what  force  of  character  appears  in 
him !  Read  his  Epistles,  and  you  will  be  struck  with 
the  wisdom  of  his  counsels  and  the  thoughtfulness  of 
his  words  ;  and  as  you  peruse  the  opening  chapters  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  you  will  not  be  able  to  help 
admiring  the  earnestness,  the  acuteness,  the  power  of 
debate,  and  skill  in  the  management  of  difficult  mat- 
ters which  he  displays.  Plainly  this  is  not  the  type 
of  a  man  who  is  easily  imposed  upon.  Let  him  be 
what  he  may,  he  is  no  fool.  There  are  in  him  sound- 
ness of  judgment  and  clearness  of  intellectual  percep- 
tion, coupled  with  an  outspoken  honesty  of  nature 
which  would  have  revolted  against  anything  like  sys- 
tematic fraud.  True,  he  denied  his  Lord  in  the  palace 
of  the  high-priest ;   but  that  was  under  pressure   of 


TES  TIMON  Y  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIR  A  CLES.       1 2 1 

momentary  temptation,  and  was  out  of  keeping  with 
his  entire  Hfe,  while  the  bitterness  of  his  after  weeping, 
and  the  character  of  his  subsequent  history,  betoken 
hpw  deeply  he  repented  of  his  sin.  Now  this  man 
gives  no  uncertain  testimony  on  the  point  before  us. 
Again  and  again  he  appeals  to  the  miracles  which 
Jesus  did  before  the  multitude,  and  declares  that  he 
was  "  a  man  approved  of  God  among  them  by  mira- 
cles, and  signs,  and  wonders,  which  God  did  by  him 
in  the  midst  of  them."*  Nor  is  this  all ;  when  writing 
in  his  old  age  a  letter,  which  might  be  valued  by  men 
after  his  decease,  he  reiterates  his  assertion,  saying, 
"  We  have  not  followed  cunningly-devised  fables,  but 
were  eye-witnesses  of  his  majesty."f  Now,  we  ask,  is 
it  likely  that  a  man  of  this  mould  could  be  so  im- 
posed upon  by  a  pretender,  that  he  should  adhere 
thus  pertinaciously  to  the  witness  which  he  gives? 

But  there  were  others  among  the  disciples  with 
distinctive  characteristics  as  inconsistent  with  the 
supposition  that  they  were  deceived  as  any  which 
Peter  possessed.  What  shall  we  say  of  such  an  one 
as  Thomas?  Here  was  a  man  who  would  accept  of 
no  testimony  save  that  of  his  own  senses,  and  who 
would  sift  for  himself  every  matter  to  the  bottom. 
Whatever  others  might  be  disposed  to  do,  he  would 
not  receive  anything  save  on  his  own  personal  experi- 


*  Acts  ii.  22.  t  2  Peter  i.  16. 

6    , 


122        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRA CLES. 

ence ;  yet  even  he  was  satisfied,  and  constrained  to 
cry  out,  "  My  Lord,  and  my  God  ! " 

There  was  Philip,  too,  who,  as  is  evident  from  his 
interruption  of  the  valedictory  discourse,  "  Lord,  show 
us  the  Father,  and  it  sufficeth  us,"*  had  very  much 
in  common  with  Thomas,  and  was  possessed  of  an 
inquisitive  mind,  not  easily  satisfied,  and  not  willing 
to  rest  in  that  which  he  did  not  clearly  comprehend. 

There  was  also  the  author  of  the  fourth  gospel, 
who  was  very  far  from  being  intellectually  incapable ; 
so  far,  indeed,  that  the  record  he  has  given  taxes  the 
highest  minds  of  our  age  to  understand  it,  for  all  so 
simple  as  at  first  it  looks.  No  one  can  thoughtfully 
read  his  pages  without  seeing  the  stamp  of  reality  on 
every  one  of  them,  and  feeling  that  he  spoke  no 
words  of  course,  but  the  plain  unvarnished  truth, 
when  he  said  in  his  Epistle,  "  That  which  we  have 
seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon,  and 
our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  Word  of  life ;  that 
which  we  have  seen  and  heard,  declare  we  unto  you."f 

Of  the  other  apostles  and  disciples  (with  the  excep- 
tion of  Paul,  who  comes  behind  as  one  "  born  out  of 
due  time,")  there  are  too  few  personal  traits  given  us 
to  enable  us  to  speak  with  precision  regarding  them  ; 
but  surely,  concerning  those  to  whom  we  have  refer- 
red, there   is   no  plausible   ground    for   maintaining 


John  xiv.  8.  f  i  John  i.  3. 


TESTIMON  Y  IN  BEHA  LF  OF  MIR  A  CLES.        \  2  3 

the  idea  that  they  were  deluded  simpletons,  the  vic- 
tims of  a  designing  impostor.  Take  their  intellectual 
ability  as  evinced  not  only  in  their  writings,  but  in 
the  effects  produced  by  them  upon  their  age,  and 
then  view,  in  connection  with  that,  the  considerations 
already  presented  as  to  the  opportunities  afforded 
them  for  investigation,  and  the  knowledge  required 
to  enable  them  to  come  to  a  decision  on  the  subject, 
and  we  arrive  at  but  one  conclusion — namely,  that 
these  men  cannot  be  viewed  as  the  blindly  credulous 
followers  of  one  by  whom  they  were  cunningly 
deluded. 

There  remains  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma, 
Were  they  themselves  deceivers?  Now  here,  as  in 
the  case  of  their  Master,  there  are  moral  considera- 
tions which  render  it  utterly  impossible  for  us  to 
think  them  guilty  of  such  baseness.  In  the  first  place, 
there  is  the  uniform  good  character  which  they  bore. 
Even  their  enemies  give  testimony  to  the  rectitude 
and  blamelessness  of  their  lives.  They  stood  out 
from  among  those  by  whom  they  were  surrounded, 
as  men  of  truth  and  purity  and  excellence.  They 
were  not  brought  before  the  judges  for  "  matters  of 
wrong  or  wicked  lewdness ; "  they  were  simple  in 
manners,  pure  in  speech,  holy  in  behavior,  and  there 
was  found  "  no  occasion  against  them,  except  it  were 
in  the  matter  "  of  their  Lord.  The  well-known  letter 
of  Pliny  to  the  Emperor  Trajan  gives  an  account  of 


124 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 


the  mode  of  life  of  the  early  Christians  generally,  at 
the  close  of  the  first  century.  But  of  these  excellent 
ones  the  apostles  were  the  leaders  and  the  best ;  and 
if  they  were  impostors,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  a 
system  which  even  its  enemies  declare  to  be  the  pur- 
est the  world  has  ever  seen,  was  founded,  and  con- 
duct which  even  their  persecutors  declared  to  be  ir- 
reproachable, was  practiced,  by  men  who  yet  were 
systematically  and  deliberately  propagating  a  lie.  We 
have  no  words  strong  enough  to  express  the  revul- 
sion with  which  we  would  turn  from  such  a  man  as 
Peter,  if,  after  his  exposure  of  the  sin  of  Ananias, 
such  a  course  could  be  pursued  by  him.  But  it  can- 
not be:  the  prickly  thistle  of  deceit  never  yet  pro- 
duced the  mellow  berries  and  rich  grape  clusters  of 
the  vine,  and  never  from  such  a  lying  root  could  the 
fair  tree  of  gospel  morality  have  sprung. 

Besides,  what  conceivable  motive  could  they  have 
had  for  persevering  in  this  course  of  deception? 
From  the  time  of  Pentecost  forward,  all  their  ideas  of 
earthly  glory  were  abandoned,  and  they  became  con- 
vinced that  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  was  "not  of  this 
world  ;  "  yet  from  that  same  date  their  testimony  was 
of  the  clearest  and  most  unwavering  character.  Not 
riches,  nor  honor,  nor  power,  nor  glory,  in  a  worldly 
sense,  could  they  expect ;  but  instead,  persecution, 
reproach,  and  a  violent  death.  Yet  "  none  of  these 
things  moved  them;"  but  they  ''took  joyfully  the 


TESTIMON  Y  IN  BEHA  LF  OF  MIR  A  CLE  S.        125 

Spoiling  of  their  goods,"  and  "  counted  not  their  lives 
dear  unto  them,"  that  they  might  be  Christ's  wit- 
nesses wherever  they  went. 

Nor  is  this  all :  among  such  a  company  of  deceiv- 
ers, if  they  were  deceivers,  it  is  inconceivable  that  no 
one  of  them  should  have  turned  against  the  rest,  and 
sought  his  personal  safety  by  bringing  their  trickery 
to  view ;  yet  that  was  never  done.  The  nearest  ap- 
proach to  anything  of  the  kind  was  in  the  case  of 
Judas;  but  as  one  has  very  quaintly  said,  "  He  was  so 
struck  with  remorse  at  the  thought  of  giving  up  his  lies 
and  becoming  an  honest  man,  that  he  went  and  hanged 
himself."*  On  the  whole,  then,  we  may  sum  up  this 
part  of  the  argument  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Hill :  "  The 
history  of  mankind  has  not  preserved  a  testimony  so 
complete  and  satisfactory  as  that  which  I  have  now 
stated.  If,  in  conformity  to  the  exhibitions  which 
these  writings  give  of  their  character,  you  suppose 
their  testimony  to  be  true,  then  you  can  give  the 
most  natural  account  of  every  part  of  their  conduct — 
of  their  conversion,  their  steadfastness,  their  heroism. 
But  if,  notwithstanding  every  appearance  of  truth, 
you  suppose  their  testimony  to  be  false,  inexplicable 
circumstances  of  glaring  absurdity  crowd  upon  you. 
You  must  suppose  that  twelve  men  of  mean  birth,  of 
no   education,  living   in  that  humble  station  which 


*  Lecture  of  Wm.  Lindsay,  D.D.,  as  before,    p.  30. 


126        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

placed  ambitious  views  out  of  their  reach  and  far 
from  their  thoughts,  without  any  aid  from  the  State, 
formed  the  noblest  scheme  that  ever  entered  into  the 
mind  of  man,  adopted  the  most  daring  means  of 
executing  that  scheme,  and  conducted  it  with  such 
address  as  to  conceal  the  imposture  under  the  sem- 
blance of  simplicity  and  virtue.  You  must  suppose 
that  men  guilty  of  blasphemy  and  falsehood,  united 
in  an  attempt  the  best  contrived,  and  which  has  in 
fact  proved  the  most  successful  for  making  the  world 
virtuous  ;  that  they  formed  this  singular  enterprise 
without  seeking  any  advantage  to  themselves,  with 
an  avowed  contempt  of  honor  and  profit,  and  with 
the  certain  expectation  of  scorn  and  persecution; 
that  although  conscious  of  one  another's  villainy, 
none  of  them  ever  thought  of  providing  for  his  own 
security  by  disclosing  the  fraud  ;  but  that  amidst  suf- 
ferings the  most  grievous  to  flesh  and  blood,  they 
persevered  in  their  conspiracy  to  cheat  the  world  into 
piety,  honesty,  and  benevolence."  "  Truly,"  adds  the 
Principal,  "  they  who  can  swallow  such  suppositions, 
have  no  title  to  object  to  miracles.""^ 

In  opposition  to  all  this,  however,  it  is  alleged  by 
the  assailants  of  the  miracles,  that  the  statements  of 
the  witnesses  do  not  harmonize,  but  that,  in  their 
different   accounts,  there  are  so   many  discrepancies 


Lectures  in  Divinity,  by  George  Hill,  D.D.    Vol.  I.,  pp.  47,  48. 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 


27 


and  contradictions  as  to  destroy  entirely  the  value  of 
their  testimony.  Thoroughly  to  answer  this  objec- 
tion would  require  us  to  take  up  and  examine  every 
case  of  alleged  inconsistency  and  show  either  that  it 
is  possible  that  the  accounts  may  be  all  correct,  de- 
spite their  apparent  antagonism,  or  that  even  if  it  be 
impossible  for  us,  with  our  limited  knowledge  of  the 
original  circumstances,  to  explain  how  they  are  all  in 
harmony,  still  there  is  nothing  in  the  existence  of 
such  things  to  warrant  our  disbelief  of  the  testimony 
of  the  evangelists  where  they  thoroughly  agree.  To 
do  that,  however,  would  need  a  bulky  volume  for  it- 
self, since  it  is  well  known  that  an  objection  may  be 
stated  in  a  line  which  it  would  require  a  dissertation 
to  remove.  I  content  myself,  therefore,  with  referring 
to  the  explanations  given  in  our  best  commentaries 
of  the  alleged  discrepancies,  and  I  offer  merely  a  few 
general  considerations  on  the  whole  subject,  without 
seeking  to  enter  into  detail. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  then,  that  a  certain  degree 
of  diversity  is  to  be  expected  in  four  depositions — 
which  profess  to  be,  and  which  really  are — separate 
and  independent  of  each  other.  If  you  enter  into  a 
court  of  law,  and  take  note  of  the  testimony  given 
by  different  individuals  to  the  same  facts,  you  will 
not  fail  to  remark  that  there  are  characteristic  traits 
in  every  deposition.  Each  witness  describes  what  he 
saw  from  his  own  angle  of  observation,  and  in  minor 


128        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

details  each  one  expresses  himself  differently  from 
another ;  but  to  the  great  facts,  they  all,  if  truthful, 
bear  the  most  distinct  and  unequivocal  testimony. 
Now,  as  the  evangelists  are  witnesses  of  matters  of 
fact,  or  at  least  give  the  statements  of  those  who  were 
witnesses,  we  may  expect  similar  diversity  in  their 
narratives  if  they  be  independent  and  distinct.  Had 
they  all  agreed  in  every  minute  phasis  of  description, 
their  value  as  distinct  witnesses  would  have  been  de- 
stroyed ;  and  it  might  have  been  said,  that,  though 
they  were  four  in  name,  they  were  in  reality  but  one 
— each  repeating  like  an  echo  what  the  other  had 
said.  There  are  here  tv/o  possibilities — either  four 
narratives  alike  in  everything,  and  so  bearing  the 
marks  of  collusion  and  arrangement,  or  four  accounts 
as  we  really  have  them,  with  distinctive  differences  and 
indications  of  independence  of  each  other,  yet  agreeing 
in  the  same  great  and  important  particulars.  Now 
every  one  who  knows  anything  of  the  laws  of  evidence 
will  declare  that  witnesses  of  the  latter  character  are 
immensely  more  valuable,  and  reliable  than  of  the 
former.  Hence,  the  discrepancies  of  which  so  much 
is  made  by  antagonists  are  really  unavoidable,  if  we 
would  have  the  best  and  least  suspicious  kind  of  tes- 
timony. It  is  here,  as  we  have  seen  it  on  former 
occasions — the  man  who  is  disposed  to  find  fault  will 
make  a  fault  however  it  may  be.  Give  him  accounts 
verbatim  et  literatim  the  same,  and  that  will  be  evi- 


TESTIMON  V  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIR  A  CLES.       \  29 

dence  of  designed  imposture  ;  give  him  accounts  dif- 
fering apparently  in  some  minor  respects  from  each 
other,  while  yet  agreeing  substantially,  and  that  is 
made  a  reason  why  they  should  not  be  believed ;  but 
the  man  of  common  sense  will  at  once  see  and  admit 
that  minor  discrepancy  is  always  to  be  expected 
when  we  have  different  and  independent  witnesses. 

Again,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  deposi- 
tions here  are  in  writing,  and  that  we  cannot  do  with 
a  document  precisely  as  we  would  with  a  witness 
whom  we  are  examining  viva  voce.  There  is  no 
doubt  a  sort  of  cross-examination  made  by  every 
good  interpreter  of  Scripture  when  he  submits  each 
separate  statement  to  a  rigid  analysis  and  endeavors 
to  see  precisely  what  it  means ;  but  even  that,  valu- 
able as  it  has  been  in  removing  the  appearance  of 
discrepancy  on  many  occasions,  is  not  for  a  moment 
to  be  compared  with  the  advantage  for  the  elucida- 
tion of  truth  which  is  furnished  by  oral  examination 
in  the  witness  box. 

While  I  lived  in  Liverpool,  I  frequently  embraced 
the  opportunity  afforded  me  in  an  assize  town  of 
spending  a  few  hours  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  have 
seen  with  no  little  admiration,  how,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  judge  and  by  the  acuteness  of  the  coun- 
sel on  both  sides,  the  whole  truth  has  been  gradually 
evolved.  Repeatedly  have  I  heard  one  witness  seem 
to  contradict  another  far  more  thoroughly  than  any 
6* 


130        TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 

one  of  the  evangelists  appears  to  contravene  another; 
and  yet  a  question  has  been  put  by  the  bar,  or  the 
bench,  or  the  jury,  the  answer  to  which  has  brought 
out  some  new  fact  by  which  harmony  has  been  re- 
stored— or,  perhaps  the  former  witness  has  been  re- 
called, and  a  question  put  to  him  which  has  elicited 
particulars  of  which  before  he  had  said  nothing,  and 
the  knowledge  of  which  was  all  that  was  needed  to 
explain  the  difference  that  had  appeared.  Now  this 
source  of  information  we  cannot  have  in  dealing  with 
the  Gospels.  Here  the  record  is  closed  ;  no  hew  fact 
can  be  evolved  by  cross-examination ;  and  so  we  are 
deprived  of  a  great  means  of  throwing  light  upon  the 
matters  in  dispute.  This  is  a  very  important  consid- 
eration, especially  when  we  take  into  account  the  fact 
that  the  great  mass  of  discrepancies  which  have  been 
heaped  together  by  the  labors  of  objectors  consists 
of  such  as  arise  out  of  our  unacquaintance  with  the 
whole  circumstances ;  and  the  answers  to  a  question 
or  two,  like  those  to  which  we  have  referred,  would 
go  very  far  to  settle  the  whole  matter  in  each  case. 
One,  whose  labors  in  this  field  give  him  a  right  to 
speak  with  some  weight,  has  said  that  ''  if  we  knew 
the  real  process  of  the  transactions  themselves,  that 
knowledge  would  enable  us  to  give  an  account  of  the 
diversities  of  narration  and  arrangement  which  the 
Gospels  now  present  to  us.""^ 


*  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  Vol.  I.,  Prolegomena,  p.  28. 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 


13 


Two  winters  ago,  as  I  was  returning  on  a  Sunday 
evening  from  my  church  to  my  home,  I  was  told  that 
a  great  fire  was  raging  in  the  city.  When  I  made  en- 
quiry into  its  character,  I  was  told  by  a  member  of  'y^ 
my  family  that  the  first  account  which  she  received 
from  a  passer-by  was  that  it  was  a  chair-factory ;  the 
second,  from  another  casual  informant,  was,  that  it 
was  an  armory ;  and  the  third,  from  still  another 
source,  was,  that  it  was  a  church ;  and  she  did  not 
know  which  to  believe.  According  to  the  logic  of 
those  who  assail  the  Gospel  discrepancies,  she  ought 
to  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was  no  fire 
at  all.  But  on  the  following  morning,  when  I  opened 
my  newspaper,  I  found  that  all  three  reports  were 
true,  and  that  even  if  there  had  been  a  fourth — to 
the  effect  that  two  churches  had  been  destroyed — 
that  also  would  have  been  correct.  Now,  a  case  like 
that  occurring  at  one's  own  door-step,  may  well 
guard  us  against  hastily  assuming  that  an  apparent 
discrepancy  is  necessarily  an  entire  contradiction ; 
for,  though  there  is  a  difference  between  an  acci- 
dental fire  and  a  miracle,  the  logic  of  evidence  is  the 
same  in  both,  and  where  the  testimony  to  the  main 
matter  is  clear,  and  given  by  persons  in  other  respects 
trustworthy,  and  with  no  conceivable  motive  impelling 
them  to  deceive,  we  are  warranted  in  concluding  that 
if  we  knew  all  the  facts,  every  minor  discrepancy 
would  disappear. 


T\^ 


132 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES. 


Now  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  truth,  that  with 
all  their  appearance  of  diversity  in  some  details,  the 
Gospel  writers  yet  concur  in  bearing  testimony  to  the 
great  fact  that  Jesus  wrought  miracles.  About  the 
surroundings  of  some  of  them  they  may  seem  to  vary 
one  from  another,  but  as  to  the  fact  that  He  wrought 
the  miracles  they  agree ;  and  in  these  circumstances 
any  unbiased  mind  seeking  to  give  an  impartial  ver- 
dict would  at  once  accept  their  statement  as  to  the 
matters  in  which  they  are  at  one,  reserving  his  judg- 
ment as  to  those  in  regard  to  which  they  seem  to  dif- 
fer. Let  it  be  observed  that  I  am  arguing  here,  not 
as  to  the  nature  or  extent  of  the  inspiration  claimed 
for  these  narratives — that  is  an  after-question ;  at 
present  I  am  concerned  only  with  their  credibility ;  and 
though  it  would  not,  I  think,  be  difficult  to  answer  all 
the  objections  which  might  be  brought  against  the 
plenary  theory  of  inspiration  from  these  apparent  in- 
consistencies, yet  I  may  not  encumber  myself  now  with 
such  considerations.  I  am  dealing  simply  with  their 
credibility ;  and  the  position  which  I  here  take  up  is, 
that  since  we  have  found  that  the  witnesses  agree  in 
certain  great  and  important  matters,  among  which  is 
the  fact  that  Jesus  performed  miracles,  and  since  we 
have  seen  that  the  men  themselves  are  both  morally 
and  intellectually  trustworthy,  therefore  we  may  fairly 
hold  as  proved  the  things  in  which  they  are  in  perfect 
harmony,  without  waiting  to  determine  what  is  the 


TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRACLES.       133 

precise  truth  as  to  those  things  in  which  they  appear 
to  be  at  variance.  I  do  not  say,  observe,  that  in  re- 
gard to  these  last  it  is  in  every  case  impossible  pre- 
cisely to  discover  what  was  the  true  order  of  occur- 
rences (for  in  many  instances  a  patient  study  of  the 
records  has  led  to  a  solution  of  the  difficulty,  though 
there  are  others  of  which  all  explanation  must  be 
mainly  conjectured)  ;  yet  even  if  this  were  impossible, 
we  must  not  allow  ourselves  on  that  account  to  reject 
the  things  in  which  such  witnesses  agree ;  and  in  lay- 
ing down  this  principle,  I  feel  I  would  be  supported  by 
the  authority  of  every  judge  on  the  bench.  There  is 
scarcely  a  trial  of  importance  on  record  in  which  there 
has  not  been  some  particular  concerning  which  there 
has  been  difficulty,  uncertainty,  and  discrepancy,  and 
about  which  it  has  been  felt  to  be  almost  impossible 
to  get  at  the  precise  truth.  Almost  every  cause  cdebre 
has  had  its  mystery,  which,  in  spite  of  the  facilities  af- 
forded by  cross-examination,  has  not  been  thoroughly 
cleared  up ;  nevertheless,  that  has  not  prevented  the 
jury  from  coming  to  a  verdict  on  those  things  in  the 
evidence  which  were  clear.  Now,  I  ask  that  the  testi- 
mony of  the  evangelists  shall  be  treated  in  the  same 
way,  and  then  I  am  sure  that  every  intelligent  en- 
quirer will  give  his  voice  in  favor  of  the  reality  and 
genuineness  of  the  miracles  of  Christ.  No  more  strik- 
ing illustration  of  the  principle  on  which  I  am  now 
insisting  can  be  found  than  that  which  is  furnished 


1 34       TESTIMONY  IN  BEHALF  OF  MIRA CLES. 

by  the  case  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  in  present- 
ing it  to  you  I  gladly  avail  myself  of  the  words  of 
Dean  Alford :  "  What  can  be  more  undoubted  and 
unanimous  than  the  testimony  of  the  evangelists  to 
THE  Resurrection  of  the  Lord  ?  If  there  be  one 
fact  rather  than  another  of  which  the  apostles  were 
witnesses,  it  was  this ;  and  in  the  concurrent  narra- 
tives of  all  four  evangelists  it  stands  related  beyond 
all  cavil  or  question.  Yet  of  all  the  events  which 
they  have  described,  none  is  so  variously  put  forth  in 
detail,  or  with  so  many  minor  discrepancies.  And 
this  was  just  what  might  have  been  expected  on  the 
principles  above  laid  down.  The  great  fact  that  the 
Lord  was  risen — set  forth  by  the  ocular  witness  of  the 
apostles  who  had  seen  Him — became  from  that  day 
first  in  importance  in  the  delivery  of  their  testimony. 
*'The  precise  order  of  His  appearances  would  natu- 
rally, from  the  overwhelming  nature  of  their  present 
emotions,  be  a  matter  of  minor  consequence,  and  per- 
haps not  even  of  accurate  enquiry  till  some  time  had 
passed.  Then,  with  the  utmost  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  women  and  apostles  to  collect  the  events  in  the 
exact  order  of  time,  some  confusion  would  be  appar- 
ent in  the  history,  and  some  discrepancies  in  versions 
of  it,  which  were  the  results  of  separate  and  independ- 
ent enquiries,  the  traces  of  which  pervade  our  present 
accounts.  But  what  fair-judging  student  of  the  Gos- 
pels ever  made  these  variations  or  discrepancies  a 


TESTIMON  Y  IN  BE  HA  LF  OF  MIR  A  CLES.        i  3  5 

ground  for  doubting  the  veracity  of  the  evangehsts  as 
to  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  or  the  principal  details 
of  our  Lord's  appearance  after  it  ?  "* 

We  may  not  quite  agree  with  the  Dean's  conject- 
ural theory  as  to  the  origination  of  the  variations,  but 
no  one  who  has  given  attention  to  the  laws  of  evi- 
dence will  cavil  with  the  principle  on  which  he  pro- 
ceeds; and  we  are  convinced  that  if  the  few  real 
discrepancies  (if,  indeed,  they  be  real),  were  looked  at 
in  the  light  in  which  we  have  here  put  them,  they 
would  not  be  felt  as  any  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the 
reception  of  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  to  the 
miraculous  occurrences  in  the  history  of  our  Lord, 
where  it  is  consentaneous  and  clear. 


*  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  Vol.  I.,  Prolegomena,  pp.  19,  20. 


THE    MYTHICAL    THEORY. 


LECTURE   V. 
THE    MYTHICAL    THEORY. 

2  Peter  i.  i6  :  We  have  not  followed  cunningly-devised  fables. 

In  opposition  to  the  weighty  evidence,  of  which  I 
attempted  to  give  a  summary,  in  my  last  lecture,  the 
most  recent  antagonists  of  the  supernatural  have  at- 
tempted to  show  that  the  stories  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  contained  in  the  four  gospels,  originated  in 
such  a  way  as  to  be  perfectly  consistent  with  proba- 
bility, while  yet  they  do  not  describe  actual  occur- 
rences. They  have,  in  fact,  applied  the  theory  of  de- 
velopment to  the  formation  of  the  evangelic  narra- 
tives, and  have  tried  to  show  how  round  a  very  small 
nucleus  of  fact,  a  great  mass  of  legends  have  grouped 
themselves  in  a  way  that  is,  in  their  estimation,  at 
least,  not  only  natural,  but  probable. 

The  great  pioneer  in  this  department  was  Dr.  D. 
F.  Strauss,  in  his  "  Life  of  Jesus  Critically  Considered." 
He  has  been  followed  in  France,  though  with  certain 
not  unimportant  modifications,  by  Ernest  Renan  ;  and 
in  Holland,  by  Kuenen,  Oort,  and  Hooykaas,  in  that 
work  which,  under  an  English  dress,  has  recently 
acquired  a  newspaper  notoriety  among  us.     It  will  be 

(139) 


I40  THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 

impossible,  within  the  compass  of  a  single  lecture,  to 
track  these  writers  through  all  the  mazes  of  their  in- 
genious subtlety;  yet  my  treatment  of  the  subject  of 
miracles  would  be  lacking  in  completeness,  if  I  did 
not  examine,  with  some  degree  of  thoroughness,  the 
theory  on  which,  with  specific  differences  among  them- 
selves, they  all  profess  to  work. 

A  myth,  according  to  Strauss,  is  a  religious  idea 
clothed  in  a  historic  form.  That  form  may  either  be 
a  pure  fiction,  or  it  may  have  a  nucleus  of  fact,  en- 
larged and  modified  or  embellished  by  the  ideas  which 
have  sought  through  it  to  find  expression.  He  dis- 
tinguishes between  myths  and  legends.  A  myth  is 
**  an  idea  translated  by  mental  realism  into  fact ;  a 
legend  is  a  group  of  ideas  round  a  nucleus  of  fact ; " 
and  he  endeavors  to  show  that  if  a  small  basis  of 
fact  heightened  by  legend  be  allowed  in  the  Gospel 
history,  the  influence  of  myth  will  account  for  the  re- 
mainder. To  borrow  from  the  Critical  Historian  of 
Free  Thought,  "  the  idea  is  regarded  as  prior  to  the 
fact ;  the  need  of  a  deliverer,  he  pretends,  created  the 
idea  of  a  Saviour ;  the  misinterpretation  of  old  proph- 
ecy presented  conditions  which,  in  the  popular 
mind,  must  be  fulfilled  by  the  Messiah.  The  Gospel 
history  is  regarded  as  the  attempt  of  the  idea  to  real- 
ize itself  in  fact."*    Thus  viewed,  the  facts  of  the  his- 


*A.  S.  Farrar's  '*  Critical  History  of  Free  Thought,"  p.  380. 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY.  141 

tory  of  Jesus  are  reduced  to  the  fewest  possible  num- 
ber. He  was  brought  up  at  Nazareth  ;  He  was  bap- 
tized by  John ;  He  formed  disciples,  whom  He  im- 
pressed with  His  wisdom  and  goodness ;  He  taught 
in  the  various  districts  of  Palestine  ;  He  proclaimed 
the  Messianic  kingdom  ;  He  opposed  the  outwardness 
of  the  Pharisees ;  and  provoked  their  enmity,  so  that 
they  put  Him  to  death  upon  the  cross;— such  is  the 
substance  of  our  Lord's  history,  which  remains  after 
the  gospels  have  been  subjected  to  the  criticism  of 
Strauss,  and  round  these  facts  the  ideas  and  aspira- 
tions of  the  early  Christians  wove  the  stories  which 
we  find  now  under  the  names  of  the  Evangelists,  im- 
agination lending  itself  not  only  to  glorify,  but  also,  in 
a  great  degree,  to  create  the  object  of  faith.  These 
books  are  thus  regarded,  not  as  the  records  of  actual 
occurrences,  but  as  the  embodiment  of  the  ideas  which 
the  Jews  entertained  of  their  Messiah ;  and  much  of 
their  coloring  is  attributed  to  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  with  which  the  people  had  been  so  long 
familiar.  Thus  the  visit  of  the  wise  men  to  Bethlehem 
is  viewed  as  suggested  by  the  prophecy  of  Balaam  ; 
the  massacre  of  the  infants  by  Herod  is  held  to  cor- 
respond to  the  destruction  of  the  Hebrew  children  by 
Pharaoh ;  the  flight  into  Egypt  is  regarded  as  having 
sprung  out  of  the  flight  of  Moses  into  Midian  ;  the  ap- 
pearance of  Jesus  in  the  temple  at  the  age  of  twelve 
is  said  to  have  been  derived  from  similar  records  re- 


142 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 


garding  Samuel ;  the  temptation  is  considered  as  an 
embodiment  of  the  idea  brought  out  in  the  history  of 
Job,  that  good  men  are  the  objects  of  special  hatred 
to  Satan  ;  and  the  transfiguration  is  thought  to  be  ac- 
counted for  by  describing  it  as  an  adaptation  to  Jesus 
of  the  narrative  of  the  glory  which  shone  on  Moses' 
face  at  Sinai.  These  are  specimens  of  the  method 
pursued  by  Strauss  and  his  followers,  his  first  theory 
being  that  all  this  was  done,  not  by  any  one  individual, 
or  with  any  fraudulent  design,  but  that  it  was  what 
one  has  called  "  a  gradual  and  spontaneous  aggrega- 
tion about  the  person  of  Jesus  of  the  various  types 
and  analogies  which  the  Jews  supposed  would  be  re- 
alized in  the  Messiah/'*  To  this  source  of  the  narra- 
tives there  falls  to  be  added  the  legendary  portion  de- 
rived from  the  influence  of  Jesus  ;  and  these  together, 
he  contends,  serve  to  account  for  the  documents  as 
they  are  now  in  our  possession.  Such  is  the  mythical 
theory,  in  its  original  form,  but  there  are  many  objec- 
tions to  it,  each  of  which  is  fatal. 

It  is  admitted,  of  course,  that  in  the  cases  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  as  also  in  that  of  India,  there  are  religious 
myths,  which  must  be  regarded  as  unhistorical ;  but 
we  contend  that  there  are  certain  marked  differences 
between  these  and  the  records  of  the  miracles  of  Christ, 
which  forbid  us  to  place  them  both  in  the  same  cate- 


"  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review,"  Vol.  I.,  pp.  630,  631. 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY.  143 

gory.  In  particular,  we  find  a  perfect  harmony  be- 
tween the  characteristics  of  Jesus  as  a  worker  of  mira- 
cles, and  those  which  come  out  in  the  other  chapters 
of  His  history,  which  is  not  perceived  between  the 
ordinary  actions  of  other  mythical  heroes,  and  their 
bearing  in  the  doing  of  the  wonders  which  have  group- 
ed themselves  around  their  names.  The  miracles  of 
our  Lord,  taken  in  connection  with  the  circumstances 
and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  performed,  tell  us 
as  much  of  His  disposition,  as  do  His  ordinary  con- 
versations, and  what  we  may  call  His  common  works, 
and  He  is  the  same  Jesus  in  them  both.  Nay,  it  may 
even  be  affirmed,  that  notwithstanding  their  repudia- 
tion of  the  supernatural,  much  of  that  impression  of 
His  character,  which  has  been  received  even  by  those 
who  deny  His  deity,  has  been  unconsciously  derived 
by  them  from  their  perusal  of  the  history  of  His 
supernatural  works.  How  little,  for  example,  we 
should  know  of  His  tenderness.  His  sympathy.  His 
compassion.  His  humility.  His  wisdom.  His  discrimi- 
nation between  the  various  classes  of  those  with 
whom  He  came  into  contact,  if  all  the  stories  of  His 
miracles  were  to  be  eliminated  from  the  gospels.  And 
yet,  all  of  these  traits,  as  they  thus  reveal  themselves 
before  our  eyes,  in  connection  with  His  miracles,  are 
not  only  perfectly  consistent,  but  also  beautifully  in 
harmony  with  His  character,  as  it  comes  out  in  His 
conversations  and  conduct  at  other  times.     Any  one 


144  THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 

can  see  at  a  glance  that  He  who  wept  at  the  grave  of 
Lazarus  is  the  same  in  all  the  deep  sympathy  of  His 
nature,  as  He  who  spoke  the  last  consolatory  address 
to  His  disciples ;  and  there  is  the  same  homogeneity 
between  His  bearing  in  His  other  miracles  and  the 
substance  of  His  discourses.  ,  Now  this  feature  is 
conspicuously  absent  in  the  mythical  stories  of  other 
religions.  They  are  not  only  in  many  instances 
ridiculous  in  their  extravagance,  but  also  generally 
associated  with  manifestations  of  temper,  which  de- 
grade the  hero,  in  the  very  moment  when  the  great- 
ness of  his  power  is  glorified,  while  sometimes  they 
indicate  a  disposition  which  is  in  direct  contradiction 
to  that  which  comes  out  in  him  elsewhere.  This  argu- 
ment has  been  admirably  elaborated  by  a  recent  writer 
from  whom  I  quote  the  following  sentences :  ^'  The 
tenderest  of  all  the  Greeks,  '  Euripides,  the  human,' 
drew  no  fairer  picture  than  the  restoration  by  Hera- 
kles  of  the  wife  of  Admetos  from  the  grave.  Yet  the 
demi-god  spices  for  himself,  with  a  little  cruelty,  the 
tamer  bliss  of  his  beneficence,  forcing  Alkestis,  un- 
recognized, and  almost,  as  they  complain,  by  violence, 
into  the  house  of  mourning,  telling  her  bereaved  hus- 
band that  the  longing  for  a  new  bridal  will  relieve  his 
woe,  and  playing  so  roughly  with  the  wound  he  means 
to  heal,  that  at  the  last  the  cry  is  wrenched  from  the 
sufferer :  *  Silence  ;  what  have  you  said  ?    I  would  not 


THE  M  Y TIIICA L   THE ORY.  145 

have  believed  it  of  you/  "*  When  we  contrast  this  with 
the  bearing  of  Jesus  at  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus, 
we  see  a  distinct  difference  between  the  two  in  the 
manner  of  the  miracle-worker,  while  at  the  same 
we  mark  in  the  demeanor  of  Jesus,  "  the  same  beauti- 
ful union  of  quick  sympathy,  with  sharp  intelligence 
resulting  in  perfect  tact,"  which  we  observe,  also,  to 
be  characteristic  of  Him  in  those  portions  of  the  gos- 
pels which  even  the  most  negative  critics  are  willing 
to  accept  as  genuine.  Max  Miiller,  quoted  by  the 
same  author,  has  said  :  "  The  Buddhist  legends  teem 
with  miserable  miracles  attributed  to  Buddha  and  his 
disciples,  miracles  which,  for  wonders,  certainly  sur- 
pass the  miracles  of  any  other  religion.  Yet,  in  their 
own  sacred  Canon,  a  saying  of  Buddha  is  recorded, 
prohibiting  his  disciples  from  working  miracles."f 

But,  indeed,  we  need  go  no  farther  here  than  the 
apocryphal  gospels,  to  be  convinced  of  the  difference 
between  the  writings  of  the  four  evangelists  and  all 
mythical  productions.  We  feel  at  once  on  reading 
these  that  the  Jesus  whom  they  depict  is  not  the  Je- 
sus whom  the  sacred  writers  have  delineated.  These 
books  are  clearly  mythical,  and  the  difference  be- 
tween them  and  the  canonical  Scriptures — not  only 


*"  Christ  Bearing  Witness  to  Himself,"  by  Rev.  G.  A.  Chad- 
wick,  D.D.,  p.  23. 
f  Ibid.,  p.  137. 


146  THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 

in  style,  but  in  the  portraiture  which  they  give  of 
Jesus — is  both  striking  and  suggestive.  The  Gospel 
of  the  Infancy  depicts  a  boy  who  became  the  terror 
of  the  neighborhood,  and  whose  temper  was  always 
flashing  out  in  some  miracle  of  punishment,  but  the 
homogeneousness  in  the  character  of  Jesus  as  He  ap- 
pears in  these  four  histories,  whether  as  a  miracle- 
worker  or  as  a  simple  teacher,  is  so  remarkable  that 
it  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  principle  that  they 
were  what  we  may  call  a  "  fortuitous  combination  '* 
of  marvellous  stories.  It  might  have  been  the  work 
of  design,  though  it  would  have  required  the  genius 
of  a  Shakespeare  and  more  to  produce  it,  and  there 
was  no  such  genius  among  the  apostles.  But  it  cer- 
tainly never  could  have  resulted  from  spontaneous 
aggregation,  and  the  simplest  explanation  of  their  ori- 
gin, one,  too,  which,  save  for  their  pre-determination 
to  admit  no  miracles,  would  have  commended  itself 
to  all  critics,  is  that  given  by  the  writers  themselves, 
namely,  that  they  were  testifying  what  they  them- 
selves had  seen  and  heard. 

—  Again,  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  myths  belong 
to  the  childhood  of  history.  Every  one  knows  that 
the  mythologies  of  Greece  and  Rome  were  generated 
in  the  pre-historic  ages.  But  that  in  which  the  Gos- 
pels were  produced  was  pre-eminently  not  merely  a 
historic,  but  a  sceptical  age.  The  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans were  beginning  to  question  their  own  religious 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY.  j^y 

stories,  and  it  is  hardly  credible  that  in  such  an  era  a 
new  mythology  should  arise. 

Moreover,  myths  require  time  for  their  growth, 
and,  therefore,  this  theory  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  date  at  which  our  gospels  were  written.  So  sen- 
sible was  Strauss  of  the  force  of  this  objection,  that 
he  has  attempted  to  fix  the  time  at  which  these  were 
completed  at  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
But,  in  this  respect,  he  is  at  variance  with  the  great 
majority  of  critics,  and  even  with  some  of  the  school 
to  which  he  himself  belonged.  The  full  elucidation 
of  this  matter  belongs  to  another  branch  of  the 
Christian  evidences.  But  Mr.  Sanday,  in  his  recent 
elaborate  monograph  on  the  fourth  gospel,  has  made 
it  plain  to  every  candid  reader  that  the  narrative  of 
John  was  written  by  an  eye-witness,  and  must,  there- 
fore, belong  to  the  first  century ;-  and,  as  it  is  uni- 
versally conceded  that  it  was  the  latest  of  the  four, 
the  others  must  be  placed  somewhere  in  the  third 
quarter  of  the  first  century;  that  is  to  say,  they  were 
finished  between  the  years  50  and  75  of  the  Christian 
era.  We  have  thus  only  thirty  years  or  a  little 
more  allowed  for  the  spontaneous  aggregation  of 
those   so-called   fictions  around  the  small  nucleus  of 


*  The  same  conclusion  is  reached  in  the  full,  candid,  and  exhaust- 
ive introduction  to  his  commentary  on  John  by  Canon  Westcott 
in  the  "  Speaker's  Commentary,"  and  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  in  his  re- 
cent monograph  on  the  same  subject  which  appeared  in  the  Unita~ 
rian  Review. 


148  THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 

facts  which  they  are  admitted  to  contain.  Their  date 
is  as  near  to  the  events  which  they  describe  as  this 
year  is  to  1848  ;  and  so  it  would  be  as  easy  for  us  to 
fabricate  a  mass  of  myths  round  the  revolutions  of 
that  year  in  Europe,  and  the  subsequent  coup  d'etat 
by  which  Louis  Napoleon  took  possession  of  the 
throne  of  France,  as  it  was  for  the  Evangelists  to 
weave  a  tissue  of  marvels  round  the  name  of  Jesus. 

But  we  are  not  left  here  to  deal  with  the  gospels 
alone.  The  most  sceptical  critics  have  been  com- 
pelled to  admit  the  genuineness  of  at  least  four  of 
Paul's  epistles — those  to  the  Galatians,  Corinthians, 
and  Romans — and  in  these  we  have  statements  which 
indicate  that  at  the  time  at  which  they  were  written, 
the  great  facts  which  the  gospels  narrate  concerning 
Jesus  were  known  and  believed.  Now  these  letters 
must  all  be  put  between  the  years  50  and  60  of  our 
era,  and  so  Paul  was  writing  not  much  more  than 
twenty  years  after  the  crucifixion.  Yet,  in  them  we 
have  repeated  reference  to  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ.  One  of  them  gives  us  an  account  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  another  of  them 
uses  language  which  suggests  the  Deity  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  and  all  of  them  pre-suppose  in  their  readers 
such  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  the  history  of  Je- 
sus, that,  though  they  were  written  before  the  gos- 
pels, we  feel  that  in  our  New  Testament  they  are 
fitly  placed  after   them,  inasmuch   as    they  can   be 


THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY.  149 

properly  understood  only  by  those  who  are  familiar 
with  the  incidents  which  the  gospels  narrate. 

Now,  how  could  such  myths  as  these  spring  up  and 
be  generally  received  and  believed  among  Christians 
within  the  space  of  twenty  years?  We  might  as 
well  expect  that  supernatural  marvels  should  by  this 
time  have  clustered  round  the  name  of  George 
Groves,  the  friend  and  some  time  patron  of  John 
Kitto,  and  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  Plymouth  Breth- 
ren ;  or  that  of  Alexander  Campbell,  who  originated 
the  sect  of  Baptists,  which  is  commonly  called  after 
him. 

Besides,  taking  the  gospels  as  we  find  them,  the 
last  of  the  four  is  that  which  has  the  fewest  records 
of  miracles  in  it.  If,  therefore,  there  had  been  any 
tendency  among  the  genuine  followers  of  Jesus  at 
that  early  date  toward  the  aggregation  of  such 
stories  round  the  name  of  Jesus,  it  is  inconceivable 
that  the  latest  gospel,  which  was  farthest  removed 
from  the  year  of  the  crucifixion,  should  have  the 
smallest  number  of  such  things  in  it ;  and  the  far- 
ther down  the  stream  of  time  you  put  that  gospel, 
the  more  inconceivable  does  this  become.     - 

But  more,  and  even  more  important  than  anything 
which  I  have  yet  advanced,  the  theory  of  Strauss 
fails  to  account  in  any  satisfactory  manner — both  for 
the  origin  of  the  character  of  Jesus  as  presented  in 
the  gospels,  and  for  the  origin  of  the  Church  itself. 


^ 


150  THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY. 

He  tells  us,  indeed,  that  the  myths  were  already 
to  a  large  extent  made  to  hand  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  that  the  Jews  only  transferred  their  ideas 
of  the  Messiah  to  Jesus.  But  to  this  the  reply  is 
easy ;  for  the  notion  of  the  Messiah  then  prevalent, 
and  indeed  too  long  clung  to  even  by  the  first  disci- 
ples of  Jesus,  was  very  different  from — was  in  many 
respects  precisely  the  opposite  of,  that  which  was 
realized  in  Jesus ;  so  that  it  is  palpably  absurd  to 
suppose  that  they  clothed  His  history  with  the  dress 
of  their  own  imagination.  Besides,  the  Jesus  of  the 
gospels  was  rejected  by  the  Jews,  and  His  followers 
latterly  were  mainly  from  among  the  Gentiles.  By 
the  time  the  gospels  were  written  the  Gentiles  formed 
a  large  proportion  of  the  Church ;  and  who  that 
thinks  of  the  circumcision  controversy  and  the  divis- 
ion which  it  created,  can  suppose  that  the  non-Jew- 
ish portion  of  the  community  would  be  content  to 
receive  the  ready-made  ideas  of  the  Jews  as  to  their 
Messiah  ?  Taking  into  consideration,  therefore,  the 
Gentile  elements  in  the  Church,  the  attempt  to  trace 
the  Gospel  narratives  to  mere  Jewish  idealism  must 
be  pronounced  a  failure. 

But  further,  how  on  such  a  theory  are  we  to  ac- 
count for  the  origin  of  the  Church  itself?  In  the 
view  of  Strauss,  the  Christ  of  the  gospels  is  the  crea- 
tion of  the  Church.  But  whence  came  the  Church 
itself?      How  did   it    originate?      The   ordinary  in- 


THE  M  YTHICAL  THE  OR  V.  151 

quirer  traces  its  origin  to  the  life,  death,  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  And  in  this  view  all  is  plain  ;  for 
such  a  cause  is  adequate  to  the  production  of  the 
effect.  The  terms  of  salvation  according  to  Paul 
were  these :  "  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be 
saved."*  The  Church  stood  upon  this  foundation  ; 
but  if  the  resurrection  is  a  myth,  who  or  what  sup- 
ported the  Church  till  that  myth  was  created  ?  Ad- 
mit that  the  resurrection  is  a  fact,  and  then  all  is  ex- 
plained ;  but  deny  that,  and  how  shall  we  account  for 
the  existence  of  the  Church  which  stood  upon  it  ? 
Men  do  not  begin  to  build  a  house  at  the  roof.  The 
pedestal  must  be  reared  before  the  statue  can  be  put 
upon  it.  The  Church  could  not  be  formed  without 
the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  How,  then, 
could  the  Church  have  created  the  myth  which  tells 
of  that  resurrection  ?  This  is  very  strongly  put  by 
Mr.  Row  in  the  following  paragraph : 

"  It  is  evident  that  some  event  must  have  taken 
place  within  a  few  days  after  the  crucifixion,  which 
has  been  capable  of  supporting  the  whole  weight  of 
the  Christian  Church.  The  actual  resurrection  of  Je- 
sus would  have  been  a  sufficient  historical  basis  on 
which  it  could  have  been  erected.    This  the  believers 


*  Rom.  X.  9. 


152  THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY. 

in  the  mythic  theory  pronounce  to  be  impossible  to 
have  happened  as  a  fact.  It  was  necessary,  there- 
fore, that  it  should  have  been  invented  as  a  fiction, 
and  that  the  followers  of  Jesus  should  have  been  in- 
duced to  believe  in  it  as  a  fact.  Such  an  invention 
would  have  been  much  easier  after  the  lapse  of  years. 
A  considerable  interval  of  time  would  have  afforded 
the  opportunity  for  the  impression  of  the  crucifixion 
to  have  grown  faint.  But  if  our  opponents  concede 
a  period  of  years  for  the  elaboration  of  this  fiction, 
they  will  greatly  exhaust  the  time  at  their  command 
for  the  creation  of  the  conception  of  Christ.  In  ad- 
dition to  this,  while  the  belief  is  being  created,  the 
Church  is  perishing.""^ 

These  considerations,  therefore,  are  enough  to 
prove  both  that  this  theory  is  improbable  in  itself, 
and  fails  to  account  for  the  facts  of  the  case.  Its 
author  deals  with  the  evangelic  narratives  in  a  man- 
ner which  is  continually'  landing  him  in  inconsisten- 
cies and  contradictions.  He  denies  the  authenticity 
of  the  gospels,  and  yet  when  it  serves  his  purpose  to 
do  so,  he  refers  to  them  as  if  they  were  of  the  most 
credible  character.  He  takes  what  suits  him,  and 
then  ignores  the  rest,  or  dismisses  it  as  mythical.  At 
one  time  he  regards  them  as  the  result  of  a  very  sim- 
ple process  going  on  almost  imperceptibly  and  with- 


*  "The  Jesus  of  the  Gospels,"  by  Rev.  C.  A.  Row,  pp.  262,  263. 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 


153 


out  any  fraudulent  intention  in  the  minds  of  thou- 
sands at  once ;  at  another,  when  perhaps  he  is  deaUng 
with  some  details,  he  assumes  a  degree  of  study  and 
reflection  on  the  part  of  their  originators,  which  is 
absolutely  incompatible  with  the  absence  of  design. 
His  method,  if  rigidly  applied  to  other  records,  would 
make  all  history  impossible.  He  starts  with  a  fore- 
gone conclusion.  Everything  consistent,  or  which, 
with  a  little  manipulation,  can  be  made  consistent 
with  that,  he  retains  ;  and  all  else,  on  one  pretence  or 
another,  he  rejects.  He  is  not  sparing  of  dogmatism; 
and  has  at  command  a  whole  corps  of  reserve  re- 
sources to  which  in  times  of  perplexity  he  betakes 
himself.  He  sets  forth  in  imposing  array  the  list  of 
discrepancies,  real  or  imaginary,  between  the  evan- 
gelists, and  that,  too,  in  the  most  glaring  form,  appar- 
ently altogether  oblivious  of  the  explanations  which 
many  of  them  have  received  ;  and  he  works  wonders 
by  the  mere  "  silence  "  of  Josephus.  But  who  does  not 
see  that,  by  a  similar  process,  any  history  may  be 
rendered  mythical?  Just  as  Whately's  "Historic 
Doubts "  as  to  the  existence  of  Napoleon  Buona- 
parte exposed  the  falsehood  of  Hume's  principles,  so 
others  have  applied  the  principles  of  Strauss  to  cer- 
tain well-known  chapters  of  modern  history,  and  have, 
by  a  reductio  ad  absurdum,  shown  the  hollowness  of 
the  mythical  theory.  And,  indeed,  in  his  latest  work 
on  the  "  Life  of  Christ,"  Strauss  virtually  abandoned 
7* 


154 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 


it  himself,  for  in  it,  to  use  his  own  words,  he  "  al- 
lowed more  room  than  before  to  the  hypothesis  of 
conscious  and  intentional  fiction  ;  "  and  so  ultimately 
he  took  his  place  among  those  who  reckon  the  au- 
thors of  the  gospels  as  deliberate  deceivers,  thereby 
laying  himself  open  to  the  full  force  of  the  argument 
which  shows  the  absurdity  of  the  idea  that  the  purest 
morality  the  world  has  ever  seen,  has  been  developed 
out  of  a  lie.  But  as  others  have  taken  up  that  which 
he  ultimately  discarded,  the  examination  to  which  I 
have  subjected  his  theory  cannot  be  regarded  as  un- 
necessary, and  has  prepared  us  for  entering  with  more 
intelligence  on  the  analysis  of  that  of  Renan. 

The  French  author  differs  from  his  German  fore- 
runner in  preferring  the  legendary  to  the  mythical  in 
the  source  of  the  gospels,  because,  "  while  giving  large 
scope  for  the  operation  of  popular  opinion,  it  allows 
the  action  and  personal  influence  of  Jesus  to  remain 
entire."  Let  me  give  you  an  idea  of  his  theory,  as 
far  as  possible,  in  his  own  words :  ^'  The  legends 
about  Jesus  were  the  fruit  of  a  great  and  entirely 
spontaneous  conspiracy,  and  were  developed  around 
him  during  his  life-time."^  "  The  title,  Son  of  David, 
was  the  first  which  he  accepted,  probably  without 
being  concerned  in  the  innocent  frauds  by  which  it 


*Renan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  pp.  179,  180. 


THE  M  YTHICAL  THEOR  V.  155 

was  sought  to  secure  it  unto  Him He  allowed 

a  title  to  be  given  him,  without  which  he  could  not 
hope  for  success.  He  ended,  it  seems,  by  taking 
pleasure  therein ;  for  he  performed  most  willingly  the 
miracles  (t.  e.,  in  Renan's,  view  the  feats  or  tricks 
which  passed  for  miracles),  which  were  asked  of  him 
by  those  who  used  this  title  in  addressing  him."*  "  As 
to  miracles,  they  were  regarded  at  this  period  as  an 
indispensable  mark  of  the  divine  and  as  the  sign  of 

the  prophetic  vocation Jesus  was,  therefore, 

obliged  to  choose  between  two  alternatives :  either  to 
renounce  his  mission  or  to  become  a  miracle-worker."f 
"  It  is  probable  that  the  hearers  of  Jesus  were  more 
struck  by  his  miracles  than  by  his  eminently  divine 
discourses.  Let  us  add  that,  doubtless,  popular 
rumor,  both  before  and  after  the  death  of  Jesus, 
exaggerated  enormously  the  number  of  occurrences 
of  this  kind.":t  "We  will  admit  without  hesitation 
that  acts  which  would  now  be  considered  as  acts  of 
illusion  or  folly,  held  a  large  place  in  the  life  of 
Jesus."§  "  We  must  remember  that  every  idea  loses 
something  of  its  purity  as  soon  as  it  aspires  to  realize 
itself.  Success  is  never  attained  without  some  injury 
being  done  to  the  sensibility  of  the  soul.  Such  is  the 
feebleness  of  the  human  mind,  that  the  best  causes 
are    ofttimes    gained    by    the    worst    arguments."! 

*Ibid.,  p.  178.  flbid.,  p.  189.  t  Ibid.,  p.  190. 

§  Ibid.,  p.  190.  11  Ibid.,  p.  190. 


iS6 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 


"  Nothing  great  has  been  established  that  does 
not  rest  upon  a  legend.  The  only  culprit  in  such 
cases  is  the  humanity  which  is  willing  to  be  de- 
ceived."* "  History  is  impossible,  if  we  do  not  fully 
admit  that  there  are  many  standards  of  sincerity.  All 
great  things  are  done  through  the  people ;  now  we 
can  only  lead  the  people  by  adapting  ourselves  to  its 
ideas.  The  philosopher  who,  knowing  this,  isolates 
and  fortifies  himself  in  his  integrity,  is  highly  praise- 
worthy ;  but  he  who  takes  humanity  with  its  illu- 
sions, and  seeks  to  act  with  it  and  upon  it,  cannot  be 
blamed.  It  is  easy  for  us,  who  are  so  powerless,  to 
call  this  falsehood ;  when  we  have  effected  by  our 
scruples  what  they  accomplished  by  their  falsehood, 
we  shall  have  a  right  to  be  severe  upon  them."f 

The  very  citation  of  these  extracts  is  enough  to 
condemn  this  theory,  not  only  because  of  the  Jesuit- 
ical morality  which  they  advocate,  but  also  because 
as  we  see  from  therii  they  seek  to  evolve  truth  out  of 
falsehood,  and  sincerity  out  of  deceit.  The  legendary 
hypothesis  in  this  form  brings  back  upon  us  all  the 
moral  anomalies,  or,  to  call  them  by  their  right  name, 
impossibilities,  which  are  inseparable  from  the  very 
conception  of  deception  in  such  an  one  as  Jesus  was, 
whether  we  consider  His  character  as  portrayed  in  the 
gospels,  or  the  effects  which  His  life  and  work  have 


*  Renan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  p.  195.  f  Ibid.,  p.  187. 


THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY.  j^^ 

produced  on  humanity;  and  substitutes  for  a  perfectly- 
adequate  explanation  of  these  effects,  one  which  is 
both  unnatural,  unphilosophical,  and  improbable. 

Three  things,  I  desire  to  set  pointedly  before  you 
concerning  this  attempt  to  construct  a  modern  ro- 
mance out  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  while  eliminating 
from  them  every  element  of  the  supernatural. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  inconsistent  with  itself. 
When  we  ask  how  Jesus  came  to  be  called  the  Son 
of  David,  Renan  gives  us  for  answer,  that  He  ''  al- 
lowed a  title  to  be  given  him  without  which  he  could 
not  look  for  success,"  and  when  we  enquire  how  He 
came  to  have  miracles  associated  with  Him,  the  reply 
is  that  "  he  professed  to  work  them,  because  without 
that  he  could  not  have  been  received  as  the  Messiah, 
one  of  whose  well-known  appellations  was  the  Son  of 
David."  Now,  let  us  analyze  these  statements.  When 
were  these  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus?  They  must 
have  been  performed  either  before  or  after  He  was 
received  as  the  Messiah.  If  before,  then  it  could  not 
be  said  that  He  merely  allowed  Himself  to  be  called 
by  a  name,  to  obtain  which  was  the  very  purpose  for 
which  the  miracles — as  Renan  understands  miracles 
— were  wrought  by  Him ;  if  after,  then  He  did  not 
need  to  work  them  in  order  to  be  received  as  the 
Messiah,  for  He  was  already  so  recognized.  If  Jesus 
had  the  title  in  a  manner  forced  upon  Him,  He  could 
not  have  wrought  miracles  with  the  view  of  getting 


1^8  THE  MYTETICAL  THEORY. 

it ;  if  He  wrought  miracles  for  the  purpose  of  being 
received  as  the  Messiah,  then  when  He  was  so  re- 
ceived, He  cannot  be  said  merely  to  have  allowed 
Himself  to  be  so  called.  The  questions  recur,  How 
did  the  belief  that  He  was  the  Messiah  originate? 
and,  How  came  He  to  attract  to  Himself  the  abiding 
allegiance  of  those  who  formed  the  first  members  of 
His  Church? — and  to  these  questions  Renan  gives  no 
answer  any  more  than  Strauss. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  this  theory  of  Renan  is 
held  by  him  in  connection  with  a  view  of  the  origin 
of  the  written  gospels,  which  on  the  very  face  of  it 
is  inconsistent  with  possibility.  He  yields  so  far  to 
the  force  of  evidence  as  to  admit  that  all  the  four 
were  completed  before  the  end  of  the  first  century.* 
He  dates  that  of  Luke  only  a  short  time  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  would,  so  far  as  ap- 
pears, have  put  it  earlier  than  that,  save  for  the  rea- 
son that  it  contains  a  prediction  of  that  event,  and, 
of  course,  that  could  not  have  been  written  before 
the  event  occurred,  for  that  would  be  a  miracle,  and 
miracles  in  his  view  are  impossible.     He  regards  the 


*  Renan's  "Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  p.  i.  But  it  needs  to  be 
added  that  after  considerable  wavering  and  vacillation  he  has,  in 
his  most  recent  utterances  on  the  subject,  accepted  a.d,  125  as  the 
date  of  the  gospel  by  John.  This,  however,  for  the  reason  sug- 
gested on  a  previous  page,  only  increases  the  difficulty,  for  it  leaves 
unaccounted  for  the  fact  that  the  fourth  gospel  has  the  record  of 
fewer  miracles  than  the  others. 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY.  j^q 

third  gospel  as  having  been  produced  at  a  later  date 
than  the  first  two.  Now,  with  these  admissions  in 
mind,  listen  to  his  account  of  the  Genesis  and  Ex- 
odus of  the  first  two  gospels.  They  are  *'  impersonal 
compositions  in  which  the  author  totally  disappears. 
That  which  appears  most  likely  is  that  we  have  not 
the  entirely  original  compilations  of  either  Matthew 
or  Mark,  but  that  our  first  two  gospels  are  versions 
in  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  fill  up  the  gaps  of 
the  one  text  by  the  other.  Every  one  wished,  in  fact, 
to  possess  a  complete  copy.  He  who  had  in  his  copy 
only  discourses,  wished  to  have  narratives,  and  vice 
versa.  It  is  thus  that  the  gospel  according  to  Mat- 
thew is  found  to  have  included  almost  all  the  anec- 
dotes of  Mark  ,  and  that  the  gospel  according  to 
Mark  now  contains  numerous  features  which  came 
from  the  logia  of  Matthew."*  "  There  was  no  scruple 
in  inserting  additions,  in  variously  combining  them, 
and  in  completing  some  by  others.  The  poor  man 
who  has  but  one  book  wishes  that  it  may  contain  all 
that  is  dear  to.  his  heart.  These  Httle  books  were 
lent :  each  one  transcribed  in  the  margin  of  his  copy 
the  words  and  the  parables  he  found  elsewhere,  which 
touched  him.  The  most  beautiful  thing  in  the  world 
has  thus  proceeded  from  an  obscure  and  purely  popu- 
lar elaboration."  f    Now,  over  and  above  the  fact  that 


*  Renan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  pp.  lo,  ii. 
f  Ibid.,  p.  12. 


l6o  THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY. 

he  offers  not  the  shadow  of  a  shade  of  proof  of  these 
assertions,  let  us  see  how  improbable  they  are  in 
themselves.  Remember,  that  on  his  own  showing, 
these  two  gospels  appeared  before  that  of  Luke, 
which  is  in  his  view  "  a  much  more  advanced  com- 
pilation."* Remember,  also,  that  the  gospel  of 
Luke,  again  on  his  own  admission,  was  written  shortly 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  occurred  in 
A.D.  70.  We  must,  therefore,  even  on  his  own  ground, 
place  the  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  in  the  de- 
cade between  60  and  70  A.D.,  so  that  for  the  purely 
popular  elaboration  of  which  he  has  spoken,  we  have 
only  an  allowance  of  thirty  years,  which,  considering 
the  rarity  of  manuscripts  and  the  difficulty  of  pro- 
ducing them  in  those  days,  is  utterly  inadequate  for 
the  purpose. 

But  how  ludicrously  impossible  is  this  account  of 
these  two  gospels  !  Renan  forgets  that  he  has  to  do 
with  documents  which  were  not  simply  private  pos- 
sessions, but  the  public  property  of  the  churches. 
However  possible,  therefore,  it  might  be  for  the  poor 
man  with  his  one  book  to  have  added  on  the  margin 
of  his  own  copy  the  accounts  of  incidents,  or  the  re- 
ports of  discourses,  which  interested  him,  the  thing 
to  be  explained  is  the  public  reception  of  these  two 
separate  books  in  their  present  form  by  the  churches ; 


*  Renan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  as  before,  p.  9. 


THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY.  i6l 

and  we  boldly  say,  that  his  attempt  to  do  that  is  ab- 
surd. Suppose  that  such  a  process  as  he  has  imag- 
ined had  been  really  carried  on,  then  what  must  have 
been  the  issue  ?  Clearly  either  one  great  aggregate 
agglomeration  of  the  two  gospels,  in  which  what  was 
Matthew's  and  what  was  Mark's  would  be  indistin- 
guishable, or  an  endless  number  of  separate  compila- 
tions, each  formed  according  to  the  taste  of  him  that 
made  it,  and  consisting  of  the  portions  which  "  touched 
him  "  most  tenderly.  But,  instead,  we  have  two  books 
bearing  very  clear  marks  of  separate  individuality. 
It  would  take  more  time  than  I  have  now  at  com- 
mand to  bring  out  the  traces  of  the  author's  idiosyn- 
crasies in  the  gospel  by  Matthew,^  but  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  give  a  brief  summary  of  the  peculiar- 
ities of  Mark — the  rather,  as  it  is  too  generally  taken 
for  granted  that  the  recorded  gospel  is  but  an  epit- 
ome of  the  first. 

Absolutely  shorter  than  that  of  Matthew,  it  will 
yet  be  found  that  the  narrative  of  Mark  is  in  many 
instances  more  full,  detailed,  and  explicit  than  that 
of  his  brother  evangelist ;  and  every  one  who  has 
given  himself  to  the  study  of  Gospel  Harmony  knows, 
that  very  frequently  the  element  that  is  needed  to 
explain  the  apparent  discrepancy  between  the  others 
is  supplied  by  Mark.     In  particular,  his  gospel  is  dis- 


See  Appendix,  Note  C 


1 62  THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY. 

tinguished  by  the  graphic  portraiture  of  events  in  the 
present  tense.  He  places  the  whole  circumstances 
before  his  readers'  eyes,  and  with  his  often  recurring 
"straightway,"*  he  gives  a  vivid  distinctness  to 
each  occurrence.  Then  we  find  that  more  attention 
is  bestowed  by  him  on  the  works  of  Jesus  than  on 
His  words,  so  that  we  have  comparatively  few  of  the 
Lord's  discourses  preserved  in  his  chapters.  This 
circumstance  is  fatal  to  the  theory  we  are  consider- 
ing ;  for  if  those  who  had  a  record  of  the  works 
wished  one  of  the  discourses,  and  vice  versa,  then 
how  comes  it  that  so  few  discourses  are  in  Mark  ? 
As  one  has  very  well  remarked  here  :  ''  Mark  is  si- 
lent on  the  greatest  of  these  discourses  which  Mat- 
thew records.  What  were  the  persons  about  who 
wished  to  have  a  complete  copy  out  of  the  two,  and 
yet  forgot  to  adopt  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ?  Two 
very  small  books,  subjected  to  this  process  of  active 
assimilation,  still  show  marks  of  independence  in 
every  chapter,  and  the  background  of  resemblances 
throws  out  the  differences  into  stronger  relief.  Had 
the  object  been  to  produce  one  gospel  out  of  two, 
any  unskilful  hand,  used  freely  for  a  couple  of  days, 
would  have  produced  a  more  successful  result  than  a 
whole  community,  working  as  M.  Renan  supposes. 


*  Evdiog,  evOvg.     These  two  terms  taken  together  occur  no  fewer 
than  forty-one  times  in  the  second  gospel. 


THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY.  163 

has  done."*  But  more  minute  individualisms  even 
than  those  which  we  have  noted  appear  in  Mark ; 
for  to  him  it  is  that  we  are  mainly  indebted  for  the 
information  we  have  regarding  our  Lord's  looks,  gest- 
ures, and  feelings.  It  is  he  who  tells  us  that  "  He 
looked  round  upon  His  accusers  with  anger,  being 
grieved  for  the  hardness  of  their  hearts."f  To  him 
we  owe  the  statement  that  He  was  "  much  dis- 
pleased "  with  the  disciples  for  commanding  away 
the  children  from  Him.:|:  He  speaks  of  His  look  of 
love  directed  to  His  spiritual  children ;  §  His  look  of 
reproof  on  the  disciples  as  a  whole,  and  specially  on 
Peter ;  ||  His  beholding  in  love  the  young  man  who 
came  to  Him  ;  T  and  His  looking  round  about  upon 
His  disciples  in  the  enforcement  of  His  words.**  So, 
too,  regarding  the  incidents  in  the  career  of  Peter, 
with  whom  Mark  is  generally  connected,  a  similar 
individuality  appears,  bringing  out  a  modesty  of  nat- 
ure which  we  do  not  commonly  associate  with  that 
apostle,  but  in  which  we  recognize  how  much  the 
grace  of  God  had  subdued  the  inherent  forwardness 
of  the  man.  There  is  the  absence  of  reference  to  the 
honors  which  Christ  bestowed  upon  him,  and  of 
which  the  others  have  spoken.  No  mention  is  made 
of  the  gift   of  the  keys,  or  of  the  walking  on   the 


*  North  British  Review,  No.  79,  pp.  189,  190.         f  Mark  iii.  5. 
X  Mark  x.  14.  §  Mark  iii.  34.  f  Chap,  viii,  33. 

1  Chap.  X.  21.  **  Chap.  x.  23-27, 


164  THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY, 

waves,  or  of  the  feet-washing,  or  of  the  scene  by  the 
Sea  of  Galilee  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  reproof 
given  him  by  the  Lord  immediately  after  his  promise 
about  the  keys  is  inserted,  and  we  have  furnished  to 
us  a  full  and  particular  account  of  the  details  of  his 
denial  of  his  Master. 

Only  in  one  instance  does  there  seem  to  be  a  de- 
parture from  this  rule,  which  the  author  appears  to 
have  studiously  followed,  and  that  is  when,  after 
Christ's  resurrection,  the  command  is  given  :  ''  Go, 
tell  His  disciples  and  Peter ;  "  *  but  even  this  is  no  ex- 
ception, for  it  is  there  as  a  mark  of  the  Divine  conde- 
scension and  generous  love  of  Jesus  to  him  even  after 
his  thrice-repeated  sin,  and  is  inserted  not  to  do  hon- 
or to  Peter,  but  to  give  glory  to  his  Lord. 

On  the  whole,  then,  we  may  allege  that  the  dis- 
tinctive characteristics  of  this  gospel  are  too  strongly 
marked  to  admit  of  our  reception  of  any  such  theory 
in  regard  to  its  origin  as  that  which  Renan  has  pro- 
pounded ;  and  we  may  leave  the  matter  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  unbiased  mind,  merely  quoting  the  re- 
marks of  a  recent  commentator  in  regard  to  this  very 
precious,  but  we  fear  too  greatly  neglected  book  : 

"  What  strikes  every  one  is,  that  though  the  brief- 
est of  all  the  gospels,  this  is,  in  some  of  the  principal 
scenes  of  our  Lord's  history,  the  fullest.     But  what 


*  Mark  xvf.  7. 


THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY. 


165 


is  not  so  obvious  is,  that  wherever  the  finer  and  sub- 
tler feelings  of  humanity,  or  the  deeper  and  more 
peculiar  hues  of  our  Lord's  character  were  brought 
out,  these,  though  they  should  be  lightly  passed  over 
by  all  the  other  evangelists,  are  sure  to  be  found 
here,  and  in  touches  of  such  quiet  delicacy  and  pow- 
er, that,  though  scarcely  observed  by  the  cursory 
reader,  they  leave  indelible  impressions  upon  all  the 
thoughtful,  and  furnish  a  key  to  much  that  is  in  the 
other  gospels.""^ 

Renan  is  not  more  successful  in  his  treatment  of  the 
gospel  of  John,  but  this  must  suffice  as  a  specimen 
of  the  improbabilities  and  inconsistencies  in  which  he 
is  landed  by  his  attempt  to  account,  on  his  principles, 
for  the  formation  of  these  narratives,  whose  simple 
naturalness  has  charmed  every  reader,  in  spite  of  his 
prepossessions  and  prejudices  against  them. 

But,  to  bring  our  analysis  and  argument  to  a  close, 
we  emphasize,  in  the  third  place,  the  fact  that  the 
theory  of  Renan  involves  all  the  moral  incongruities 
which  we  have  seen  are  inseparable  from  the  opinion 
that  Jesus  was,  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  a  deceiver. 
For  a  deceiver  He  was,  if  this  is  the  true  account,  and 
all  the  miracles  are  degraded  to  mere  acts  of  illusion, 
performed  for  the  purpose  of  substantiating  a  claim 
to  which  He  had  no  shadow  of  a  title.    Renan,  indeed, 


*  Dr.  David   Brown  in   "  Commentary  :  Critical,  Experimental, 
and  Practical,"  Vol.  V.,  under  Mark  I. 


1 66  THE  MYTHICAL   THEORY. 

attempts  to  vindicate  Him  for  His  imposture  by  a 
species  of  casuistry;  but  his  vindication  is  a  failure. 
True,  he  says  that  ''  a  mere  sorcerer  after  the  man- 
ner of  Simon,  the  magician,  could  not  have  brought 
about  a  moral  revolution  like  that  effected  by  Jesus,"* 
but  the  question  here  is.  Could  the  author  of  a  moral 
revolution  like  that  effected  by  Jesus,  employ  such 
immoral  means  as  that  of  palming  Himself  upon  the 
people  as  a  worker  of  real  miracles,  while  He  was  only 
a  thaumaturgus,  that  is,  a  performer  of  acts  of  illu- 
sion and  folly?  Thus  are  we  brought  back  to  the 
point  which  we  reached  in  our  former  argument :  either 
Jesus  was  a  deceiver  and  knowingly  passed  off  as  mira- 
cles what  were  only  feats  of  legerdemain — and  so  we 
are  beset  with  all  the  moral  difficulties  on  which  we 
have  enlarged — or  He  was  the  truth,  and  His  miracles 
were  genuine.  To  the  character  of  Jesus  himself,  and 
the  influence  of  the  system  which  He  introduced,  this, 
like  all  our  other  modern  religious  controversies,  nar- 
rows in  ;  and  we  do  not  shrink  from  the  issue ; — for  if 
that  pure  and  holy  character  be  sullied,  the  miracles 
are  not  worth  the  keeping;  while  if  that  be  retained 
spotless,  the  miracles  will  present  no  difficulty,  since 
the  character  of  Jesus  is  itself  the  grandest  miracle 
the  world  has  ever  seen.  Not  from  a  root  of  decep- 
tion could  such  a  goodly  tree,  bearing  on  its  branches 


*  Renan,  as  before,  p.  95. 


THE  M  YTHICA L   THEOR  V.  1 6/ 

all  manner  of  wholesome  fruits,  and  whose  leaves  are 
for  the  healing  of  the  nations,  spring ;  and  we  may 
well  say,  with  an  eloquent  reviewer,  ''  If  falsehood 
about  the  holiest  things  is  so  blessed  with  fruit  that 
is  not  false,  then  surely  there  is  no  such  divine  rule  of 
truth  and  justice  over  the  world  as  we  had  supposed ; 
and  grapes  may  blossom  on  thorns  and  figs  be  sought 
among  thistles  ;  God  blesses  alike  the  truth  and  the 
lie ;  and  the  record  of  eighteen  centuries  of  church 
history  is  the  account  of  the  exuberant  vitality  of  a 
pious  fraud  at  best,  and  at  most  of  simple  fraud  and 
falsehood.  From  the  edge  of  this  precipice  even  the 
non-Christian  would  try  to  struggle  backward.  This 
moral  earthquake  where  an  underlying  falsehood 
shakes  all  the  firm  foundations  of  truth,  which  v/e 
thought  solid  to  the  axis,  we  can  only  think  upon 
with  horror."* 

It  only  remains  to  be  added,  that  the  mythical 
theory  of  Strauss  has  almost  disappeared  from  the 
place  of  its  birth,  and  that  the  good  old  gospels  have 
reasserted  their  superiority  even  in  the  University  of 
Tubingen.  The  error  thus  supplanted  in  Tubingen 
has  found  an  asylum  for  a  time  in  Holland,  whence 
some  are  seeking  to  import  it  into  our  own  land.  But 
we  need  not  fear  the  issue.  Here,  as  in  Germany, 
it  will  only  bring  more  investigation  to  bear  upon  the 


*  North  British  Review,  No.  79,  p.  208. 


1 68  THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY. 

gospels  themselves,  and  the  more  thoroughly  they 
are  examined,  the  more  will  the  majesty  of  Jesus  re- 
veal itself  to  the  eyes  of  men,  and  the  more  conclu- 
sively will  it  ultimately  be  shown  that  no  merely  nat- 
ural process  can  account  for  the  existence  of  these 
matchless  narratives,  and  that  ineffably  glorious  person- 
ality. One  plan  after  another  has  been  tried  to  prove 
that  this  Christianity  of  ours  is  of  men,  but  each  new 
method  has  been  destructive  of  all  the  rest,  and  has 
been  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  itself,  and  not  only 
anti-supernatural,  but  absolutely  unnatural.  -"They 
are  dead  that  sought  the  young  child's  life."  Such 
was  the  message  that  came  to  Joseph  in  Egypt,  when 
Herod,  who  attempted  to  murder  Jesus,  had  passed 
away ;  and  such,  also,  is  a  summary  of  the  history  of 
the  efforts  from  those  of  Porphyry  and  Celus  down- 
ward, which  have  been  made  against  the  Gospel  of 
the  Lord.  Out  of  each  new  crucible  it  has  come  forth 
with  its  genuineness  more  fully  tested,  and  ever, 
Phoenix-like,  it  has  risen  from  the  fire  in  which  men 
vainly  hoped  they  had  consumed  it  to  ashes.  So  it  has 
been ;  so  it  shall  be.  Every  human  key  breaks  in 
the  lock  of  the  problems  which  these  gospels  present ; 
but  it  opens  at  once  to  that  which  is  divine.  No 
mere  natural  hypothesis  will  account  for  the  phe- 
nomena. But  the  moment  we  accept  the  truth  that 
Jesus  is  divine,  that  moment  everything  in  the  nar- 


THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY.  169 

ratives  themselves,  and  in  their  influence  on  our  race, 
is  perfectly  accounted  for.  It  answers  to  everything 
in  these  as  thoroughly  as  the  Copernican  theory  an- 
swers to  the  phenomena  of  the  solar  system.  Noth- 
ing else  so  answers  to  these  and  lexplains  them,  and 
therefore  that  must  be  accepted  as  the  truth. 
8 


THE    EVIDENTIAL    VALUE 

OF  THE 

MIRACLES. 


LECTURE   VI. 

THE  EVIDENTIAL  VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

Hebrews  ii.  4 :  God  also  bearing  them  witness  both  with  signs  and 
wonders  and  with  divers  miracles. 

The  removal  of  the  objections  which  have  been 
raised  against  the  possibility  and  credibility  of  the 
Gospel  miracles,  and  the  exposure  of  the  unsatisfac- 
tory nature  of  even  the  most  ingenious  theories 
which  have  been  devised  for  the  purpose  of  account- 
ing on  merely  natural  principles  for  the  origin  of  the 
narratives  which  contain  the  records  of  these  won- 
drous works,  have  brought  us  now  face  to  face  with 
the  question,  the  miracles  being  admitted  as  real — 
What  do  they  prove  ?  What  conclusion  are  we  war- 
ranted to  draw  regarding  Jesus  from  the  fact  that  He 
wrought  supernatural  works  ?  Now,  if  we  were  right 
in  our  definition  of  a  miracle  at  the  outset,  this  ques- 
tion need  not  detain  us  long.  We  said  that  a  mira- 
cle is  a  work  out  of  the  usual  sequence  of  secondary 
causes  and  effects,  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  by 
the  ordinary  action  of  these  causes,  and  which  is  pro- 
duced by  the  agency  of  God,  in  connection  with  the 

173 


174     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

word  of  one  who  claims  to  be  His  representative. 
Hence,  if  such  works  be  performed  through  the  in- 
strumentaHty  of,  or  at  the  word  of,  one  who  claims 
to  be  a  messenger  from  God,  they  are  the  divine 
authentication  and  confirmation  of  that  claim.  They 
are  God's  attestation  of  the  commission  of  Him  who 
represents  Himself  as  bearing  a  communication  of 
His  mind  to  men.  They  are  the  credentials  of  the 
legate  of  the  Most  High,  and  endorse  for  us  the 
statements  of  the  ambassador  in  connection  with 
whose  mission  they  are  performed.  Their  testimony 
is  thus  to  the  doctrine — not  immediately  and  directly, 
but  mediately  and  through  the  messenger.  Their 
(^  primary  and  direct  attestation  is  to  him  at  whose 
word  they  are  wrought.  They  represent  him  as  one 
who  is  authorized  to  speak  on  God's  behalf;  and 
thus,  through  him,  they  stamp  his  message  as  from 
God. 

It  has  often  been  said,  indeed,  that  power  cannot 
in  the  nature  of  things  confirm  truth ;  but  that  all 
depends  on  whose  power  it  is.  Now,  in  this  instance 
it  is  the  power  of  God,  and  the  moral  perfection  of 
Deity  gives  its  own  character  to  the  forth-putting  of 
that  power  in  confirmation  of  the  claims  of  him  at 
whose  word  the  miracle  is  wrought.  The  name  at  the 
bottom  of  a  letter  does  not  in  itself  give  me  a  guaran- 
tee for  the  truth  of  the  contents  of  the  epistle  ;  it  only 
tells  me  who  the  writer  is ;    and,  for  my  estimate  of  his 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      175 

statements,  I  must  fall  back  upon  what  I  know  of 
his  character.  In  like  manner,  the  power  of  the 
miracle,  taken  by  itself,  does  not  assure  me  either 
of  the  truthfulness  of  the  claims  put  forth  or  the 
authority  of  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  miracle- 
worker  ;  for  that  I  must  fall  back  on  the  character  of 
Him  whose  power  performed  the  supernatural  work, 
and,  considering  that  He  is  God,  I  may  be  well  as- 
sured that  He  would  not  affix  the  seal  of  His  con- 
firmation to  anything  that  is  false,  or  sanction  a 
claim  to  speak  in  His  name  which  is  not  truthfully 
advanced. 

Thus  viewed,  miracles  are  the  outward  and  visible 
confirmation  by  supernatural  agency  of  a  claim  to 
the  possession  of  an  inward  commission,  equally  su- 
pernatural, but  lying  in  a  region  which  is  beyond  the 
sphere  of  our  observation.  The  prophet  declares  that 
he  speaks  in  God's  name  the  things  which  God  has 
commanded  him ;  that  is  to  say,  he  affirms  that  there 
is  an  intellectual  and  spiritual  miracle  being  wrought 
upon  him,  by  virtue  of  which  he  communicates  God's 
truth  to  us ;  but  the  reality  of  that  mental  miracle, 
so  to  call  it,  we  have  no  direct  means  of  testing ;  and 
therefore  it  is  attested  to  us  by  the  performance  of 
another  supernatural  work — this  time  in  the  depart- 
ment of  physical  nature,  and  such  as  we  can  ob- 
serve and  investigate  for  ourselves. 

When  Jesus  said  to  the  paralytic,  '*  Son,  thy  sins 


1^6     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

be  forgiven  thee,"  He  made  an  assertion,  the  verifi- 
cation of  which  was  impossible  by  His  hearers ;  for 
it  referred  to  that  spiritual  domain  which  lies  beyond 
human  inspection.  Therefore  they  said,  *'  Why  doth 
this  man  speak  blasphemies  ?  Who  can  forgive  sins  but 
God  only  ?  "  as  if  they  had  exclaimed,  "  It  is  a  safe 
thing  to  make  a  claim  like  that,  because  you  know 
we  cannot  investigate  it."  But  the  Lord,  fully  aware 
of  their  objection,  said:  "Why  reason  ye  these 
things  in  your  hearts  ?  Whether  is  it  easier  to  say 
to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  '  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee,' 
or  to  say,  '  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  walk  ? '  But 
that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power 
on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (he  saith  to  the  sick  of  the 
palsy)  *  I  say  unto  thee.  Arise  and  take  up  thy  bed 
and  go  thy  way  into  thine  house.'  And  immediately 
he  arose,  took  up  the  bed,  and  went  forth  before  them 
all ;  insomuch  that  they  were  all  amazed,  and  glori- 
fied God,  saying,  We  never  saw  it  on  this  fashion." 

Now,  we  have  here  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the 
evidential  place  of  a  miracle.  Jesus  admits  that  only 
God  can  forgive  sins,  and  the  argument  of  His  mira- 
cle may  be  thus  stated :  "  It  is  true  that  none  can 
forgive  sins  but  God ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  none 
can  heal  the  paralytic  by  a  word  but  God  ;  if,  there- 
fore, I  do  that  latter  work  before  your  eyes,  you  havQ 
a  proof  that  I  am  entitled  to  perform  that  other 
work,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  whose  performance  lies 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      177 

in  a  department  beyond  the  range  of  your  inspection. 
The  two  things,  each  in  its  own  province,  are  aHke 
the  prerogatives  of  Deity ;  and,  by  the  manifestation 
of  the  one,  I  give  you  the  confirmation  of  my  claim 
to  the  exercise  of  the  other."  But  what  is  true  of 
this  one  miracle,  in  its  relation  to  the  claim  that  Je- 
sus had  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  is  true  of  the 
miracles  of  Christ  as  a  whole  in  their  relation  to  all 
the  claims  which  He  ever  advanced.*  This  is  abun- 
dantly evident  from  the  following  passages  which 
have  been  already  before  us :  "  The  works  that  I  do 
in  my  Father's  name  bear  witness  of  me.  If  I  do 
not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not ;  but  if 
I  do,  though  you  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works, 
that  ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in 
me  and  I  in  him.  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the 
works  which  none  other  man  did,  they  had  not  had 
sin.  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and 
the  Father  in  me  ?  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you 
I  speak  not  of  myself;  but  the  Father  that  dwelleth 
in  me,  he  doeth  the  works.  Believe  me  that  I  am  in 
the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me,  or  else  believe  me 
for  the  very  works'  sake."t 


*  So  Canon  Westcott,  in  his  weighty  work  on  "The  Gospel  of 
the  Resurrection,"  says,  p.  174:  "It  may  indeed  be  said  that  the 
Resurrection  (of  Christ)  is  the  historic  seal  of  the  Incarnation, 
which  remains  forever  a  mystery,  removed  from  witness." 


f  John  X.  25,  37,  38  ;  xv.  24  ;  xiv.  10,  11. 


1^8     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

Now,  putting  together  all  these  words  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  it  is  most  evident  that  they  imply  the  follow- 
ing things ;  namely,  that  there  was  in  the  person, 
words,  character,  and  conduct  of  the  Lord,  enough 
to  lead  men  to  believe  that  He  is  in  the  Father  and 
the  Father  in  Him ;  that  for  the  sake  of  those  who 
could  not  arrive  by  one  step  at  such  a  conclusion,  the 
miracles  were  provided  as  the  Father's  visible  testi- 
mony to  His  claims;  that,  even  if  there  were  no 
other  evidence  than  that  given  by  the  miracles,  men 
ought  to  hear  and  believe  Him  simply  on  the  ground 
of  the  witness  which  they  bore  to  Him,  or  "  for  the 
very  works'  sake ; "  and  that,  if,  in  the  face  of  such 
evidence  as  the  miracles  bore  to  Him,  men  should 
reject  Him,  they  would  be  guilty  of  aggravated  and 
inexcusable  sin. 

A  similar  deduction  as  to  the  evidential  value  of 
the  miracles  must  be  drawn  from  the  language  of 
Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  he  spoke  of  Je- 
sus to  his  hearers  as  "  a  man  approved  of  God  among 
them  by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs,  which  God 
did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  them  as  they  themselves 
also  knew ;  "*  and  from  the  words  of  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  when  he  says :  "  How 
shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation,  which 
at  first  began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was  con- 


*  Acts  ii.  22. 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


79 


firmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard  him ;  God  also 
bearing  them  witness ;  both  with  signs  and  wonders 
and  with  divers  miracles  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
according  to  his  own  will."* 

Clearly,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
miracles,  over  and  above  any  other  significance  that 
they  may  possess,  are  regarded  as  God's  attestation 
and  confirmation  of  the  claims  of  those  at  whose 
word  they  were  performed,  and  as  thereby  also  seal- 
ing to  us  the  truth  of  the  doctrines,  which,  in  connec- 
tion with  them,  were  taught.  When  Jesus  showed 
the  woman  of  Samaria  that  He  had  a  full  knowledge 
of  her  personal  history,  though  He  had  never  met 
her  on  the  earth  before,  she  rightly  concluded  that 
He  was  a  prophet ;  and  that  prepared  her  for  accept- 
ing as  true  the  statement  which  He  made,  when,  in 
answer  to  her  reference  to  the  Messiah,  He  said,  "  I, 
that  speak  unto  thee,  am  he."  Reasoning  from  simi- 
lar premises,  we  come  to  a  similar  conclusion,  and 
afiirm  that  the  miracles,  when  themselves  proved  to 
be  real,  do,  in  their  turn,  attest  the  truthfulness  of 
the  claims  put  forth  by  Jesus,  and  so  affix  to  all  His 
statements  the  official  and  authoritative  seal  of  God. 

Against  all  this,  however,  it  has  been  contended  by 
some  earnest  Christians,  that  so  far  from  confirming 
the  claims  of  those  at  whose  word  they  were  per- 


*  Hebrews  ii.  4. 


l8o     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

formed,  and  attesting  the  doctrines  which  they  taught, 
the  miracles  must  first  be  themselves  tested  by  the 
doctrines,  before  they  can  be  received  as  from  God, 
and  regarded  as  of  any  value.  The  claims  and  doc- 
trines, it  is  alleged,  must  be  judged  entirely  on  spirit- 
ual grounds,  and  the  miracles  are  to  be  received  be- 
cause of  their  connection  with  the  doctrines,  rather 
than  the  doctrines  because  of  their  connection  with 
the  miracles.  It  may  be  well,  therefore,  to  enter 
somewhat  fully  into  the  consideration  of  this  subject, 
the  rather  that  since  the  days  of  Coleridge,  and  very 
much  owing  to  the  influence  exerted  by  him  on  mod- 
ern theological  enquiry,  there  has  been  a  tendency 
among  many  to  adopt  opinions  which,  when  fairly 
carried  out,  would,  in  my  view,  make  the  evidential 
value  of  miracles  a  vanishing  quantity,  and  ultimately 
reduce  it  to  a  nonentity. 

Let  us  concede,  here,  that  the  claims  of  Jesus 
and  the  doctrines  which  He  taught  are  true,  al- 
together independently  of  the  miracles.  The  mira- 
cles did  not  make  them  true;  but  they  helped  to 
make  their  truth  more  manifest.  Take  the  case  of 
a  man  accused  of  a  crime.  Either  he  is  innocent 
or  guilty  from  the  very  first ;  yet  evidence  is  led ;  and 
the  effect  is  to  make  plain  which  of  the  two  he  is.  So, 
again,  in  mathematics,  every  proposition  in  Euclid  is 
true  independently  of  its  demonstration.  The  demon- 
stration only  makes   its  truth  apparent.     Similarly, 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES,      igi 

Jesus  is  of  God,  and  His  doctrines  are  true  altogether 
independently  of  the  miracles  He  wrought ;  and  the 
miracles  are  true  altogether  independently  of  the  doc- 
trines; but  the  truth  of  the  miracles  makes  that  of  His 
claims  and  His  doctrines  more  evident,  and  for  that 
reason  miracles  were  performed  at  the  inauguration  of 
the  Gospel. 

Again,  let  us  admit,  that  in  the  age  of  the  Apolo- 
gists, and  during  the  English  deistical  controversy, 
attention  was,  by  many,  too  exclusively  devoted  to 
the  department  of  the  external  evidences,  while  that 
of  the  experimental  was,  to  a  large  extent,  neglected. 
Yet,  that  affords  no  proper  reason  why  we  should  now 
ignore  the  external  evidences  altogether.  There  are 
external  evidences,  and  there  are  experimental  evi- 
dences. Each  species  has  its  own  province,  and  each 
is  to  be  taken  in  its  own  order,  and  estimated  at  its 
own  value.  There  is  a  divine  adaptation  in  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel  to  the  wants  and  condition  of  the 
human  heart,  and  in  seeking  to  establish  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  that  must  not,  by  any  means,  be  lost 
sight  of,  any  more  than  we  should  forget  the  glorious 
effects  which  have  resulted  from  the  belief  of  the 
Gospel  wherever  it  has  been  made  known.  But 
neither,  on  the  other  hand,  must  we,  ourselves,  ignore, 
or  suffer  others  to  make  light  of,  the  attestation  of  the 
claims  of  Jesus,  which  was  given  by  God  in  the  mira- 
cles which  He  wrought.    We  do  not  put  the  miracles 


1 82     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

in  the  place  of  Christian  experience,  but  neither  must 
we  allow  Christian  experience  to  cast  the  miracles  en- 
tirely into  the  shade.  In  the  line  of  proof,  the 
miracles  come  first,  introducing  the  messenger  from 
heaven  ;  then  on  the  ground  of  that  divine  testimony 
which  they  bore  to  Him,  we  believe  His  teaching 
and  receive  Himself;  and  after  that.  His  teaching  hav- 
ing been  believed,  experience  begins  to  bear  its  wit- 
ness. Reverting  to  the  case  of  the  woman  of  Samaria, 
it  was  the  evidence  given  by  her  to  the  people  of  her 
city  regarding  His  miraculous  knowledge  of  her  his- 
tory, that  induced  them  to  go  out  to  Jesus  ;  but  after 
they  had  been  with  Him,  they  came  back,  saying: 
"  Now  we  believe,  not  because  of  thy  saying,  for  we 
have  heard  Him  ourselves,  and  know  that  this  is,  in- 
deed, the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world."  That  is 
to  say,  they  had  now  additional  evidence,  besides  that 
of  the  miracle  to  which  she  bore  testimony,  and  from 
their  own  experience  in  their  interview  with  Him,  they 
were  sure  that  He  was  the  Messiah.  But  it  must  not 
be  supposed  that  the  miracle  was  of  no  value  to  them, 
though  they  put  their  later  experience  above  it ;  on 
the  contrary,  but  for  it,  and  the  woman's  testimony 
to  it,  they  would  never  have  gone  out  to  meet  Him. 
Now,  similarly,  with  ourselves ;  if  we  have  attained 
to  the  evidence  of  inward  experience,  or  if  we  have 
anj^  right  idea  of  the  grandeur  of  the  effects  which 
have  been  produced  on  men,  on  society,  and  on  the 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      183 

world  at  large,  through  the  ministry  and  the  Gospel 
of  Christ,  we  shall,  unquestionably,  put  both  of  these 
above  the  testimony  which  is  borne  to  Him  by  the 
miracles  that  were  wrought  during  His  life  upon  the 
earth ;  but  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  say  that  these  mir- 
acles have  not  helped  us  up  to  the  experience  which  we 
thus  so  highly  prize.     On  the  contrary,  they  were  a 
step,  and  a  very  important  step  too,  in  the  ladder  up 
which  we  have  ascended  to  the  privileged  height  on 
which  now  we  stand.     It  is  most  unwise  to  set  one 
branch  of  evidence  up  against  another,  as  some  writers 
have  done  here ;  and  if,  in  the  remarks  which  I  am 
now  to  make,  I  shall  be  led  to  speak  almost  exclu- 
sively of  the  worth  of  the  miracles,  and  to  take  high 
ground  on  that,  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  in  order 
thereto,  I  seek  to  lower  the  value  of  the  evidence  of 
experience— I  wish  only  to  give  to  each  its  due. 

By  far  the  ablest  exponent  of  the  view  which  I  am 
now  to  controvert,  is  Dr.  Trench,  the  present  Arch- 
bishop of  Dublin ;  and  that  I  may  not  misrepresent 
his  opinions,  I  shall  quote  a  few  sentences  from  two' 
of  the  chapters  of  the  Preliminary  Essay,  prefixed  to 
his  valuable  "  Notes  on  the  Miracles  of  our  Lord." 
His  words  are  these  :  ''  A  miracle  does  not  prove  the 
truth  of  a  doctrine,  or  the  divine  mission  of  Him  that 
brings  it  to  pass.  That  which  alone  it  claims  for  Him 
at  the  first,  is  the  right  to  be  listened  to  ;  it  puts  Him 
in  the  alternative  of  coming  from  heaven  or  from  hell. 


1 84     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

The  doctrine  must  first  commend  itself  to  the  con- 
science as  being  good,  and  only  then  can  the  miracle 
seal  it  as  divine.  But  the  first  appeal  is  from  the  doc- 
trine to  the  moral  nature  of  man."*  Again  :  *'  It  may 
be  objected,  if  this  be  so,  if  there  be  this  inward  wit- 
ness of  the  truth,  what  need  then  of  the  miracle  ?  to 
what  end  does  it  serve  when  the  truth  has  accredited 
itself  already  ?  It  has,  indeed,  accredited  itself  as  good, 
as  from  God  in  the  sense  that  all  which  is  good  and  true 
is  from  Him,  as  whatever  was  precious  in  the  teach- 
ing even  of  the  heathen  sage  or  poet  was  from  Him, 
but  not  yet  as  a  new  word  directly  from  Him,  a  new 
speaking  on  His  part  to  man.  The  miracles  are  to  be 
the  credentials  for  the  bearer  of  that  good  word,  signs 
that  He  has  a  special  mission  for  the  realization  of  the 
purpose  of  God  in  regard  to  humanity."f  Once  more : 
"  Are  then,  it  may  be  asked,  the  miracles  to  occupy 
no  place  at  all  in  the  array  of  proofs  for  the  certainty 
of  the  things  which  we  have  believed  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, a  most  important  place.  We  should  greatly 
miss  them  if  they  did  not  appear  in  sacred  history,  if 
we  could  not  point  to  them  there  ;  for  they  belong  to 
the  very  idea  of  a  Redeemer,  which  would  remain 
most  incomplete  without  them.  We  could  not,  our- 
selves, without  having  that  idea  infinitely  weakened 
and  impoverished,  conceive  of  Him  as  not  doing  such 


*Trench's  "Notes  on  the  Miracles,"  p.  24.  f  Ibid.,  p.  24. 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      185 

works ;  and  those  to  whom  we  presented  Him  as  a 
Lord  and  Saviour  might  very  well  answer,  Strange 
that  one  should  come  to  deliver  men  from  the  bond- 
age of  nature  which  was  crushing  them,  and  yet  Him- 
self have  been  subject  to  its  heaviest  laws ;  Himself 
wonderful,  and  yet  His  appearance  accompanied  by 
no  analogous  wonders  in  nature ;  claiming  to  be  the 
life,  and  yet  Himself  powerless  in  the  encounter  with 
death ;  however  much  He  promised  in  word,  never 
realizing  any  part  of  His  promise  in  deed ;  giving 
nothing  in  hand,  no  first-fruits  of  power,  no  pledges 
of  great  things  to  come."  **  They  would  have  a  right 
to  ask.  Why  did  He  give  no  signs  that  He  came  to 
connect  the  visible  with  the  invisible  world  ?  Why 
did  He  do  nothing  to  break  the  yoke  of  custom  and  ex- 
perience, nothing  to  show  men  that  the  constitution 
which  He  pretended  to  reveal  has  a  true  foundation."* 
Now,  there  is  here  not  a  little  of  that  "  luminous 
haze  "  which  we  so  often  find  in  those  who  drank  at 
the  well  of  Coleridge,  and  it  is  a  little  difficult  to 
seize  the  precise  thought  which  he  designs  to  express. 
Yet  when  we  look  minutely  at  his  words,  we  shall  find 
that  they  are  inconsistent  not  only  with  the  Scriptural 
view  which  I  have  already  set  before  you,  but  also 
with  his  own  exposition  of  one  of  the  miracles  on 
which  he  has  commented  in  the  body  of  his  work. 


*Ibid.,  p.  93. 


1 86     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES, 

I  may  best  expose  the  erroneous  nature  of  his  view 
in  a  series  of  observations  on  it. 

First,  it  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  clear  mean- 
ing of  the  Saviour's  words,  which  I  have  already 
quoted.  Again  and  again,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Lord 
claimed  to  be  received  "  for  the  very  works'  sake  ; " 
and  on  one  very  solemn  occasion  He  declared  that 
the  guilt  of  the  Jews  was  greatly  aggravated  by  the 
fact,  that  He  had  done  such  miracles  in  the  midst  of 
them. 

Now,  how  could  Jesus  have  spoken  after  such  a 
fashion,  if  His  supernatural  works  claimed  for  Him, 
at  first,  only  the  right  to  be  listened  to  ?  He  did  not 
blame  the  Jews  for  not  listening  to  Him,  neither  did 
He  find  fault  with  them,  because  after  hearing  His 
words,  they  still  refused  to  acknowledge  His  works 
as  divine  ;  but  His  charge  was  that  they  did  not 
receive  or  believe  Him  as  the  Messiah ;  and  He 
declared  that  in  rejecting  Him  they  were  guilty  of 
aggravated  sin,  because  the  works  which  He  did, 
clearly  proved  Him  to  be  from  the  Father. 

But  in  all  this,  on  Trench's  principle,  Jesus  was 
laying  a  stress  on  the  miracles  which  they  were  not 
able  to  bear,  and  weakening  His  cause  by  basing  His 
claim  to  acceptance  on  purely  objective  grounds. 
Surely  there  must  be  something  wrong  with  a  theory 
which,  in  its  sweeping  results,  would  blame  the  Master 
for  asking  to  be  believed  ''  for  the  very  works*  sake." 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      ig/ 

Secondly,  this  mode  of  viewing  the  miracles  is  in- 
consistent with  the  Archbishop's  own  explanation  of 
the  evidential  value  of  the  miracle  of  the  healing  of 
the  paralytic,  in  the  body  of  his  book.  Here  is  his 
comment  on  the  conversation  between  Jesus  and  His 
antagonists  on  that  occasion  :  "  They,"  (that  is,  the 
spectators  when  they  said,  ''  This  man  blasphemeth  : 
who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  ?  ")  "  were  murmur- 
ing, no  doubt,  within  themselves.  These  honors 
are  easily  snatched  ;  any  pretender  may  go  about  the 
world  claiming  this  power,  and  saying  to  this  man 
and  that,  '  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee  ; '  but  where  is 
the  evidence  that  his  word  is  allowed  and  ratified  in 
heaven,  that  this  which  is  spoken  on  earth  is  sealed 
in  heaven  ?  In  the  very  nature  of  the  power  which 
this  man  asserts  for  himself,  he  is  secure  from  detec- 
tion ;  for  this  releasing  of  a  man  from  the  condemna- 
tion of  his  sins  is  an  act  wrought  in  the  inner  spirit- 
ual world,  attested  by  no  outer  and  visible  sign  ; 
therefore  it  is  easily  claimed,  since  it  cannot  be  dis- 
proved." And  our  Lord's  answer,  meeting  this  evil 
thought  in  their  hearts  is,  in  fact,  this  :  ''  You  accuse 
me,  that  I  am  claiming  a  safe  power,  since  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  benefit  bestowed  no  sign  follows, 
nothing  to  show  whether  I  have  challenged  it  right- 
fully or  not.  I  will  therefore  put  myself  to  more  de- 
cisive proof.  I  will  speak  a  word  and  I  will  claim 
a  power — which   if  I   claim  falsely,  I  shall  be   con- 


1 88     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

vinced  upon  the  instant  to  be  an  impostor  and  a 
deceiver.  I  will  say  to  this  sick  man,  '  Rise  up  and 
walk ; '  by  the  effects  as  they  follow  or  do  not  fol- 
low, you  may  judge  whether  I  have  a  right  to  say 
unto  him,  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee/'*  Here,  then, 
is  one  case  in  which  the  miracle  did  prove,  on  the 
Archbishop's  own  showing,  the  truth  of  the  claim  put 
forth  by  Him  who  wrought  it.  But  if,  in  one  instance, 
his  principle  must  be  set  aside,  can  it  be  received  at 
all  ?  This  act  of  healing  was  something  more  than  a 
claiming  of  the  right  to  be  listened  to,  or  a  -putting 
of  Jesus  in  the  alternative  of  coming  from  heaven  or 
from  hell.  It  was  an  attestation  by  that  which  was 
submitted  to  men's  eyes,  of  His  right  and  power  to 
do  that  which  in  its  very  nature  lay  out  of  the  region 
of  proof. 

Moreover,  the  doctrine  here  had  not  to  commend 
itself  as  good,  before  the  miracle  could  seal  it  as  di- 
vine. The  scribes  were  undoubtedly  right  in  their 
belief  that  God  alone  can  forgive  sin.  That,  as  an 
abstract  proposition,  is  a  good  doctrine,  and,  if  they 
were  bound  to  test,  the  miracle  by  that  alone  before 
receiving  it,  then  they  would  have  been  blameless  in 
rejecting  it.  But  to  this,  perhaps.  Dr.  Trench  would 
reply,  that  the  miracle  in  this  case  proclaims  it  to  be 
a  new  word  directly  from  God,  that  Jesus,  as  the  Son 


*  Trench's  "  Notes  on  the  Miracles,"  pp.  205,  206. 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      189 

of  Man,  had  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sin.  Unfor- 
tunately, however,  he  has  laid  it  down,  as  a  principle, 
that  the  doctrine  cannot  be  authenticated  as  a  new 
word  by  the  miracle,  until  it  has  first  been  received 
as  a  true  word  by  the  conscience.  Now,  on  the  very 
surface  of  the  narrative  it  appears  that  the  miracle, 
in  this  case,  was  wrought,  not  after  the  doctrine  was 
received  as  good  and  true,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
convincing  all  present  of  its  truth  ;  for  before  He 
spoke  to  the  paralytic,  the  Lord  said  that  He  did  it 
''that  they  might  know  that  the  Son  of  man.  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sin."  Here,  therefore,  the 
first  appeal  was  not  to  the  moral  nature,  but  to  the 
miracle,  and  the  supernatural  work  was  done  to  con- 
firm the  claims  of  the  Messiah  and  authenticate  the 
words  which  He  spake.  The  Archbishop's  theory, 
therefore,  breaks  down  in  his  own  hands,  as  far  as 
this  miracle  is  concerned,  and  so  we  may  justly  ques- 
tion its  truth  in  the  case  of  the  others. 

But  thirdly,  I  object  to  the  view  of  Dr.  Trench 
and  the  school  to  which  he  belongs,  because  it  gives 
a  changing  value  to  the  miracle,  according  to  the 
time  at  which  it  is  regarded.  At  first,  the  supernat- 
ural work  is  viewed  as  only  a  call  to  attention  ;  then 
when  the  doctrine  is  approved  by  the  conscience,  the 
miracle  becomes  a  divine  attestation  of  the  doctrine 
as  a  "  new  "  word  from  God.  Now  this  is  a  most  un- 
satisfactory way  of  treating  the  subject.   What  a  mir- 


ipo     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

acle  is,  I  maintain  it  must  be  always.  It  stands  on 
its  own  foundation,  and  is  to  be  judged  by  its  own 
tests  ;  and  if  received  as  genuine,  its  testimony  is 
distinct,  determinate,  and  constant ;  not  one  thing 
now,  and  another  again.  If  it  do  not  at  first  attest 
the  doctrine  as  from  God,  it  cannot  afterward ;  if  it 
confirm  the  divinity  of  the  doctrine  at  all,  it  must 
do  so  from  the  first  and  always.  Such  a  method  of 
dealing  with  it  as  the  Archbishop  has  adopted,  must 
end  in  making  it  prove  nothing.  "  If,"  as  Dr.  Ward- 
law  says,  '^  so  far  as  the  miracle  is  concerned,  the 
message  which  it  accompanies  may  be  from  hell  as 
well  as  from  heaven ;  from  the  devil  as  well  as  from 
God ;  from  the  kingdom  of  lies  no  less  than  from  the 
kingdom  of  truth ;  if  the  miracle  implies  no  more 
than  a  right  to  be  listened  to,  having  nothing  in  it  at 
all  evidential  of  the  source  from  which  the  message 
comes,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  it  can  become  evi- 
dential of  this,  after  that  source  has  been  ascertained, 
from  the  nature  of  the  message  itself.  If  it  is  not 
proof  at  first  of  the  message  being  from  God,  it  can- 
not be  proof  afterward.  It  may,  if  you  will,  be  re- 
garded as  attesting  its  being  '  a  new  word,'  but  not 
as  attesting  a  new  word  from  Him,  a  new  speaking 
on  His  part  to  man.  That  is  determined  by  the  char- 
acter of  the  message  itself;  as  attested  by  man's  con- 
science or  moral  nature.  The  miracle  attests  noth- 
ing.    It  may  be  a  diabolical  sign  just  as  really  and  as 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      191 

much  as  a  divine  one.  It  is  solely  the  nature  of  the 
doctrine  that  certifies  its  origin,  not  the  miracle  at 
all.  The  theory,  as  it  appears  to  me,  divests  miracles 
of  their  evidential  value  entirely."*  This  difficulty 
seems  to  have  been  felt  by  Dr.  Trench  himself,  for 
once  and  again,  he  asks :  "  Are  the  miracles  to  oc- 
cupy no  place  in  the  array  of  proofs  ? "  and  then 
having  given  them,  in  one  sentence,  a  subjective 
value  as  belonging  to  the  very  idea  of  a  Redeemer, 
he  oscillates  back  to  the  old  view,  by  admitting  that 
if  there  were  no  miracles  men  would  be  justified  in 
saying  of  Jesus,  ''  Why  did  He  give  no  signs  that  He 
came  to  connect  the  visible  with  the  invisible  world  ? 
Strange  that  one  should  come.  Himself  wonderful, 
and  yet  His  appearance  accompanied  by  no  analogous 
wonders  in  nature  !"  But  what  is  this,  if  it  be  not  a 
craving  for  some  external  attestation  or  sign  of  the 
wonderful  mission  ?  What  is  this  but  asking  some 
evidence,  by  means  of  the  supernatural  that  is  seen, 
of  the  truth  of  that  claim  to  the  supernatural  in  a 
province  that  is  unseen  and  lies  out  of  the  region  of 
investigation.  The  more  we  ponder  these  somewhat 
hazy  sentences,  the  more  are  we  disposed  to  ask. 
Can  it  be  that  the  miracles  have  such  an  impalpable 
value  as  evidences  to  Jesus  and  His  Gospel,  that  we 
cannot  shape  it  into  distinctness  ?    Is  it  possible  that 


Wardlaw  on  "Miracles,"  pp.  215,  216. 


192 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


works  to  which  our  Lord  so  clearly  appealed  in  at- 
testation of  His  mission,  should,  like  a  dissolving 
view,  pass  while  we  gaze  upon  them,  from  one  thing 
into  another,  and  finally  disappear,  leaving  nothing 
behind  ?  It  would  be  a  poor  exchange  for  the  defi- 
niteness  of  the  ground  taken  by  the  apostles  on  this 
point,  to  accept  the  uncertainty  of  that  which  has 
here  been  substituted. 

Fourthly.  This  theory  is  unsatisfactory,  inasmuch 
as  the  appeal  which  it  makes  to  the  moral  nature  of 
man  must  ever  be  a  most  uncertain  and,  therefore,  a 
very  useless  criterion.  I  admit  most  cheerfully  that 
the  truth  of  God  does  commend  itself  to  the  moral 
nature  of  man,  by  its  adaptation  to  his  circumstances 
and  wants  ;  but  that  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
making  the  conscience,  depraved  as  it  is,  the  stand- 
ard by  which  all  that  claims  to  be  truth  coming  from 
God  is  to  be  tried.  Why  was  an  external  revelation 
needed  by  man  at  all,  if  it  were  not  to  give  him  a 
certain  for  an  uncertain  standard  ?  But  precisely  as 
there  was  need  for  an  external  revelation  to  be  a 
standard  of  truth,  there  was  need  that  the  revelation 
itself  should  in  some  external  way  convince  us  of  its 
genuineness ;  and  this  is  done  by  miracles.  '  If  men 
are  left  to  their  own  preferences,  these,  as  all  history 
before  the  advent  proves,  will  be  as  numerous  as  the 
dialects  of  Babel.  We  need  some  external  stamp  of 
authority  which   will  authenticate   some   messenger 


EVIDENTIAL    VALUE  OE  THE  MIRACLES.      193 

from  God,  and  give  us  a  reason,  independent  of,  and 
in  addition  to,  the  character  of  His  utterances,  for  giv- 
ing heed  to  His  words,  and  we  find  that  in  miracles. 

Fifthly.     This  theory  of  the  Archbishop  is  based  on 
what  seems  to   me,  at  least,  the  erroneous  opinion 
that  true  miracles  may  be  performed  in  attestation  of 
falsehood.     Immediately  preceding   the  extracts   al- 
ready given  from  his  essay,  the  following  statement 
will  be  found:  "This  fact,  however,  that  the  king- 
dom of  lies  has  its  wonders,  no  less  than  the  kingdom 
of  truth,  would  be  alone   sufficient  to   convince  us 
that  miracles  cannot  be  appealed  to  absolutely  and 
simply,  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  which  the  worker  of 
them  proclaims ;  and  God's  word  (Deut.  xiii.  5)  ex- 
pressly declares  the  contrary."*     But  a  little  before,t 
he  had  said  that  the  works  of  anti-Christ  and  his  or- 
gans, are  not  "  miracles  in  the  very  highest  sense  of 
the  word  ;  they  only  in  part  partake  of  the  essential 
elements  of  the  miracles."     Now,  if  this  be  so,  surely 
the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  fact,  if  it  be  a 
fact,  that  the  kingdom  of  lies  has  its  wonders  as  well 
as  the.  kingdom  of  truth,  ought  to  be,  not  that  a 
miracle  purely  and  simply  cannot  prove  a  doctrine ; 
but  that  only  "  miracles  in  the  very  highest  sense  of 
the   term"   (as   all  through  we  have   been  using  it) 
and  possessing  all  the  essential  elements  of  the  mira- 


*  "  Notes  on  the  Miracles,"  ubi  supra,  pp.  23,  24.       \  Ibid.,  23. 
9 


194 


EriDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


cle,  do  absolutely  and  simply  prove  a  doctrine.  The 
amount  of  the  argument  here,  therefore,  is  simply  to 
put  us  on  our  guard  against  being  imposed  upon  by 
miracles  which  are  not  miracles  in  the  highest  sense 
of  the  term,  and  to  bid  us,  before  implicitly  receiving 
the  doctrine  on  the  faith  of  the  miracle,  be  sure  that 
it  is  a  miracle  indeed.  Dr.  Trench  here  touches  the 
subject  of  the  criterion  by  which  miracles  are  to  be 
tested,  and  not  at  all  the  evidential  value  of  those 
which,  on  right  grounds,  are  received  as  works  of  God. 
Thus  far,  granting  his  premises,  the  argument  will  carry 
us:  Doubtful  miracles  are  not  to  be  relied  on  any 
more  than  doubtful  arguments  ;  therefore  we  must  be 
on  the  watch  lest  we  receive  false  miracles  as  true. 

But  can  we  fully  admit  his  premises  ?  Is  it  the  case 
that  miracles,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word,  have 
been  wrought  by  evil  spirits,  or  by  the  organs  of  anti- 
Christ  in  support  of  error?  In  answer  to  that  ques- 
tion it  might  be  enough  to  say  with  Mansell :  "  It 
remains  yet  to  be  shown  that  in  all  human  experi- 
ence, any  instance  can  be  produced  of  a  real  miracle 
wrought  by  evil  spirits  for  the  purposes  of  decep- 
tion ;  "  but  to  content  myself  with  that  would  per- 
haps leave  room  for  the  insinuation  that  I  shrink 
from  an  investigation  of  the  passages  of  Scripture 
which  are  generally  supposed  to  bear  upon  this 
point.  Let  me,  therefore,  ask  you  to  look  with  me 
for  a  little  at  the  more  important  of  them.     These 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      195 

are  the  chapters  in  the  beginning  of  Exodus,  relating 
to  the  works  of  the  Egyptian  magicians ;  and  the 
verses  in  Deuteronomy  referred  to  by  Dr.  Trench  in 
the  extract  already  quoted.  Let  us  examine  them 
both. 

First,  As  to  the  wonders  performed  by  the  ma- 
gicians. From  a  careful  study  of  the  chapters  to 
which  I  have  referred,  the  following  things  may  be 
gathered ;  namely,  that  the  magicians  could  only  go 
a  certain  length  in  their  reproductions,  or  rather,  as  I 
judge  it  to  have  been,  their  imitations  of  the  works  of 
Moses ;  that  on  all  the  occasions  on  which  they  were 
successful,  intimation  had  been  given  by  Moses  of 
what  he  was  about  to  do  in  time  to  allow  opportunity 
on  their  part  for  preparation ;  that  in  the  case  in 
which  they  failed  no  intimation  of  his  intention 
had  been  given  beforehand  by  Moses,  and  so  they 
were  taken  unawares,  and  had  no  preparation  made ; 
and,  finally,  that  they  never  attempted  to  remove 
the  plagues  which  came  at  the  word  of  Moses,  but 
contented  themselves  with  appearing  to  produce,  on 
a  small  scale  and  to  a  very  limited  extent,  effects 
similar  to  those  which  were  wrought  at  Moses'  word. 
Now,  does  not  all  this  look  as  if,  throughout,  they 
had  been  working  with  simply  natural  agents?  and 
that,  when  they  failed,  they  did  so  because  they  were 
taken  by  surprise  and  had  no  opportunity  to  study 
how  they  were  to  appear  to  rival  this  new  manifesta- 


1^6     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

tion  of  the  hand  of  God  ?  Indeed,  if  this  explanation 
be  not  accepted,  it  will  be  hard  to  see  what  there  was 
more  difficult  of  performance  for  them  in  the  bring- 
ing of  the  gnats,  than  in  the  production  of  the  frogs. 
Nay,  if  it  be  allowed  that  they  really  and  truly 
changed  a  rod  into  a  serpent,  which  was  a  virtual  im- 
partation  of  life  and  organization  to  a  piece  of  mat- 
ter, it  will  be  impossible  to  explain  why  they  should 
have  been  baffled  by  anything.  Hence,  putting  all 
these  things  together,  we  are  compelled  to  conclude 
that  the  wonders  done  by  the  magicians  were  not 
miracles  at  all,  but  mere  feats  of  legerdemain  similar 
to  those  which  are  common  to  this  day  among  the 
jugglers  of  the  East. 

But  some  will  say.  Is  it  not  affirmed  that  *Hhe 
magicians  did  so?  "  and  does  not  that  imply  that  they 
did  the  same  things  as  Moses?  No,  we  reply;  for  in 
the  instance  in  which  they  failed,  the  same  words  are 
used :  "  the  magicians  did  so,  and  they  could  not." 
What  to  me  is  conclusive  on  the  point,  however,  is 
that  some  of  the  things  done  at  the  word  of  Moses 
were  virtual  creations ;  and  it  is  inconceivable  that 
God  should  delegate  to  evil  spirits,  or  to  men,  such  a 
power  as  was  needed  for  the  performance  of  such 
works,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  contending  with  Him- 
self ;  as  if  one  in  a  game  of  chess  should  match  his 
right  hand  against  his  left.  The  thing  is  preposter- 
ous.    Clearly,  therefore,  whatever  these  works  of  the 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      ic^y 

magicians  were,  they  were  not  miracles  in  the  only- 
sense  in  which  we  can  employ  the  word. 

But  neither  is  there  any  foundation  for  the  view  of 
Trench  in  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  to  which  he 
has  referred.  The  words  are  these :  "  If  there  arise 
among  you  a  prophet,  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and 
giveth  thee  a  sign,  or  a  wonder,  and  the  sign  or  the 
wonder  come  to  pass,  whereof  he  spake  unto  thee, 
saying,  Let  us  go  after  other  gods,  which  thou  hast 
not  known,  and  let  us  serve  them ;  thou  shalt  not 
hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  prophet,  or  that 
dreamer  of  dreams ;  for  the  Lord  your  God  proveth 
you,  to  know  whether  ye  love  the  Lord  God  with  all 
your  heart  and  with  all  your  soul.  Ye  shall  walk 
after  the  Lord  your  God,  and  fear  him,  and  keep  his 
commandments,  and  obey  his  voice,  and  ye  shall 
serve  him,  and  cleave  unto  him.  And  that  prophet, 
or  that  dreamer  of  dreams,  shall  be  put  to  death ;  be- 
cause he  hath  spoken  to  turn  you  away  from  the 
Lord  your  God,  which  brought  you  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  redeemed  you  out  of  the  house  of 
bondage,  to  thrust  thee  out  of  the  way  which  the 
Lord  thy  God  cammanded  thee  to  walk  in :  so  shalt 
thou  put  the  evil  away  from  the  midst  of  thee."*  Now, 
let  us  remember  that  this  passage  is  adduced  to  prove 
that  the  first  appeal  is  from  the  doctrine  to  the  moral 


*  Deut.  xiii.  1-5. 


tq8    evidential  value  of  the  miracles. 

nature  of  man,  because  the  kingdom  of  lies  has  its 
wonders  as  well  as  the  kingdom  of  truth.  But  a  little 
investigation  will  convince  any  one  that  the  appeal 
here  is  not  to  the  moral  nature  of  man  at  all,  but  to 
the  consistency  of  God  himself.  The  Hebrews  had  al- 
ready received  a  revelation  miraculously  attested  from 
God,  and  the  argument  is  that  as  God  cannot  deny 
or  contradict  Himself,  any  wonders  or  signs  wrought 
in  opposition  to  the  precepts  of  that  revelation  are  to 
be  regarded  as  impostures,  and  the  workers  of  them 
are  to  be  punished  as  having  been  guilty  of  high 
treason  against  the  theocratic  king.  The  case  is  not 
that  of  a  people  to  whom  miracles  are  presented  for 
the  first  time  ;  but  rather  that  of  those  who  had 
themselves  seen  the  giving  of  the  manna,  the  bring- 
ing of  water  out  of  the  rock,  and  the  leading  of  the 
tribes  by  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  flame.  Now,  as  their 
law  had  been  thus  unequivocally  established  by  God, 
they  were  not  to  allow  themselves  to  be  moved  from 
it  by  anything  else,  no  matter  how  marvellous,  to  out- 
ward appearance,  might  be  the  signs  and  wonders  by 
which  its  advocates  enforced  it.  And  so,  as  I  have 
said,  the  appeal,  here,  is  not  to  the  moral  nature  of 
man  at  all,  but  to  the  consistency  of  God;  and  it 
makes  the  doctrines  only  a  test  of  miracle,  after  t/uy 
have  themselves  been  received  as  viiraculously  attested^ 
and  so  from  God, 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  if  a  previous  external 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.      199 

revelation,  miraculously  confirmed,  ought  to  be  thus 
employed  to  try  the  miracles  of  those  who   might 
afterward  arise,  and  pretend  to  work  them  for  the 
purpose  of  turning  men  away  from  it ;  then,  by  parity 
of  reasoning,  the  prior  revelation  which  God  has  made 
of  Himself  in  the  heart  of  man  should  be  employed 
to  test  the  doctrines  of   the  divine  messenger,  and 
through  them  the  miracles  which  He  professes  to  per- 
form; so  that  thus  we  are  brought  back  to  the  old 
appeal  to  the  moral  nature  of  man.    But  we  must  dis- 
tinguish between  things  that  differ.     In  the  case  sup- 
posed by  Moses,  the  pretender  to  miraculous  power 
seeks  to  oppose  and  draw  men  away  from  truth,  which 
they  have  already  received  on  good  evidence  as  di- 
vine ;  whereas,  in  the  other  case,  he  is  adducing  his 
supernatural  works   as  witnesses  of   the  divinity  of 
some  new  truth,  not  contradicting  that  which  they 
have  already  received,  but  so  far  transcending  it  as  to 
be  above  the  reach  of  their  discovery.     In  this  last  in- 
stance, the  miracle-worker  takes  his  stand  upon  ad- 
mitted and  accepted  truth,  and  seeks  to  lead  men  up 
to  some  new  and  higher  principles,  the  miracle  being 
not  a  witness  to  the  old  which  they  have  already  re- 
ceived, but  to  the  new  which  he  desires  them  to  ac- 
cept.    If  he  controverts  the  old,  then  the  law  laid 
down  by  Moses  may  come  into  operation ;  but  if  he 
simply  builds  upon  it,  and  seeks  only  to  rise  above  it, 
then  most  evidently  the  old  received  truth  cannot  be 


200     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

made  a  test  of  any  kind,  wherewith  to  try  the  miracle 
by  which  he  confirms  the  new.  The  miracles  are  not 
wrought  by  him  in  support  of  natural  religion,  or  of 
those  truths  which  may  be  gathered  from  the  moral 
nature  of  man ;  but  in  confirmation  of  new  truths 
which  he  is  bringing  to  light.  Hence,  it  must  be  evi- 
dent at  a  glance,  that  in  a  case  of  this  sort,  the  old 
truths  of  natural  religion,  admitted  and  acted  upon  as 
they  are  by  both  parties,  are  comparatively  worthless 
as  tests,  either  of  the  miracles  or  of  the  new -truths  re- 
vealed in  connection  with  them.  In  the  case  of  the 
Scriptures,  indeed,  the  harmony  of  their  doctrines 
with  the  moral  nature  of  man  is  one  of  the  proofs  of 
their  truth  ;  but  it  is  not  on  that  alone  that  the  value 
of  the  evidence  of  miracles  depends.  They  have  their 
own  distinct  and  independent  place.  They  stand  up- 
on a  footing  of  their  own ;  and  if  they  be  received  as 
divine,  then  since  they  postulate  the  truths  of  natural 
theology,  and  do  not  controvert  them,  the  natural 
theologian  has  only  to  listen  to  and  believe  the  revela- 
tion which  they  introduce. 

But  I  need  not  pursue  this  subject  further,  since  I 
have  said  enough  to  convince  you  of  the  unsatisfac- 
tory and  untenable  nature  of  the  view  maintained  by 
the  eminent  prelate  to  whom  I  have  referred.  Nor 
would  I  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  his  argument,  if  it 
had  not  been  that  the  weight  of  his  great  ability ;  the 
influence   of  his  deservedly  high  position ;   and  the 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES,     20I 

gratitude  which  all  biblical  students  owe  to  him,  for 
the  valuable  assistance  they  have  received  from  his 
writings,  are  apt  to  induce  many  to  accept  his  reason- 
ings without  due  examination.  His  error  seems  to 
me  to  be,  that  he  has  mistaken  the  ultimate  estimate 
of  the  miracles  to  which  the  Christian  world  has  at- 
tained for  that  which  was  entertained  at  first  by  en- 
quirers coming  toward  Christianity,  but  not  yet  be- 
lievers in  its  truth.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  it  is  cor- 
rect to  say  that  "  the  true  revelation  is  one  of  mutual 
interdependence,  the  miracles  proving  the  doctrines, 
and  the  doctrines  approving  the  miracles,  and  both 
held  together  for  us  in  blessed  unity  in  the  person  of 
Him  who  spake  the  words  and  did  the  works;"  but 
that  is  after  the  truth  of  both  have  been,  each  on  its 
own  proper  grounds,  received.  It  may  be  true,  also, 
that  in  looking  on  the  doctrines  as  throwing  back 
light  on  the  miracles,  we  are  receiving  "  the  sum  total 
of  the  impression  which  this  divine  revelation  is  in- 
tended to  make  on  us,  instead  of  taking  an  impres- 
sion only  partial  and  one-sided;"  but  it  is  equally 
true,  that  this  sum  total  has  come  to  us  as  the  aggre- 
gate of  two  different  instalments.  We  do  not  main- 
tain that  the  miracles  are  the  sole  evidences  on  which 
our  holy  religion  rests.  Neither  are  we  prepared  to 
affirm  that  they  furnish  that  sort  of  testimony  which 
is  most  likely  to  move  the  mind  of  this  generation ;  but 
what  we  contend  for  is,  that  when  their  genuineness 


202     EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

is  admitted,  they  do  give  divine  attestation  to  the 
claims  and  doctrines  of  Him  at  whose  word  they  were 
wrought ;  and,  for  that  contention,  we  have  the  exam- 
ple and  the  warrant  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself. 
Thus  have  I  sought  to  outline  for  you  both  of 
those  arguments  which,  in  my  second  lecture,  I  fore- 
shadowed. By  the  one  we  were  led  to  infer  the  Di- 
vine Personality  of  Christ,  from  the  character  He  mani- 
fested, the  words  He  spake,  and  the  influence  w^hich 
His  Hfe  has  had  on  the  history  of  humanity.  Then, 
that  Personality  accepted.  His  miracles  cease  to  pre- 
sent any  difficulty,  as  being  only  the  accompanying 
halo  of  that  grander  miracle  which  He  is  Himself.  By 
the  other,  having  established  the  credibility  of  the 
miracles,  against  all  objections,  we  have  found  that 
they  give  an  infallible  endorsement  to  the  claims  made 
by  Him,  and  in  connection  with  which  He  wrought 
them.  The  two  methods  are  related  to  each  other 
much  as  the  proof  of  the  correctness  of  a  sum  is  to 
the  sum  itself.  The  scholar  works  out  his  problem 
one  way ;  then,  taking  the  answer,  he  begins  on  that, 
and  reverses  all  his  operations,  until  he  ends  where  he 
began.  In  the  first  argument,  reaching  the  Personality 
of  Christ  on  independent  grounds,  we  hang  the  mira- 
cles on  that ;  in  the  second,  we  rise  through  the  mira- 
cles to  the  perception  of  Christ's  Divine  Personality. 
Nothing  proved  by  the  one,  is  taken  for  granted  in 
the  other.     They  are  distinct  and  independent,  yet 


EVIDENTIAL   VALUE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.     203 

both  alike  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  "  Word  made  flesh/'  or  as  Paul  has  otherwise  ex- 
pressed the  same  truth,  "God  manifest  in  the  flesh." 
But  if  this  be  so,  what  then  ?  Can  we  stop  there  with- 
out going  further?  Nay,  for  if  these  two  lines  of  proof 
be  conclusive,  then  it  must  follow  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  only  a  Saviour,  but  the  only  possible  Sav- 
iour ;  and  so  a  keen  edge  is  given  to  the  question,  *'  How 
shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation?" 

Will  you  forgive  me,  if  now  quitting  the  argu- 
mentative style  to  which  throughout  these  discourses 
I  have  studiously  confined  myself,  I  make  one  per- 
sonal appeal,  and  beseech  you  to  consider  the  choice 
which  is  thus  set  before  you — salvation  through  the 
reception  of  the  crucified,  but  divinely  attested  Son  of 
God,  or  as  the  punishment  of  rejecting  Him,  "  ever- 
lasting destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and 
from  the  glory  of  His  power."  Take  heed  how  you 
decide  between  these  alternatives,  for  it  is  your 
ETERNITY  that  trembles  in  the  balance.  Beware,  I 
beseech  you,  of  the  guilt  and  doom  of  those  of  whom 
the  Lord  himself  thus  spoke :  "  If  I  had  not  come  and 
spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin ;  but  now 
they  have  no  cloak  for  their  sin.  He  that  hateth  me 
hateth  my  Father  also.  If  I  had  not  done  among 
them  the  works  that  none  other  man  did,  they  had 
not  had  sin  ;  but  now  they  have  both  seen  and  hated 
both  me  and  my  Father." 


THE    SPIRITUAL    SIGNIFICANCE    OF 
THE   MIRACLES. 


LECTURE    VII. 

THE    SPIRITUAL   SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE 
MIRACLES. 

John  ii.  II  :  This  beginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Gali- 
lee, and  manifested  forth  his  glory. 

The  term  sign,  which  in  the  New  Testament  is  so 
frequently  used  in  connection  with  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  has  three  distinct  meanings.  It  denotes,  in 
its  simplest  usage,  a  means  of  identification,  as  when 
the  angel  said  to  the  shepherds,  "  This  shall  be  a  sign 
unto  you,"  *  and  then  proceeded  to  describe  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  the  infant  Jesus  would  be  found 
by  them ;  or  as  when  Paul,  referring  to  his  auto- 
graphic endorsement  of  his  second  letter  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  uses  these  words :  "  The  salutation  of  Paul 
with  mine  own  hand,  which  is  the  token  (ffif^eiov, 
sign)  in  every  epistle ;  so  I  write."  f  It  designates, 
again,  a  proof  or  evidence,  furnished  by  one  set  of 
facts,  to  the  reality  and  genuineness  of  another ;  as 
when  Paul  alleges  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians  X  that 
*'  the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  wrought  among  them  ;*' 
meaning   thereby  that  the  patience,  the  signs,  and 


*  Luke  ii.  12.  f  2  Thess.  iii.  17.  %  2  Cor.  xii.  12. 

(207) 


2o8    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRA  CLES. 

wonders,  and  mighty  deeds  which  they  saw,  conclu- 
sively authenticated  him  as  an  apostle,  since  only  an 
apostle  was  in  a  position  to  manifest  them.  But  it 
signifies  also,  in  the  third  place,  a  symbol  or  emblem, 
as  when  Ezekiel*  gave  a  sign  to  the  house  of  Israel 
by  the  type  of  a  siege ;  or  by  digging  through  the 
wall  and  carrying  out  thereby  his  baggage  as  the  bag- 
gage of  one  going  forth  into  captivity.  Now  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  Christ  were  signs  in  all  these  three 
senses.  They  identified  Him  as  the  Messiah  foretold 
in  prophecy ;  they  authenticated  Him  as  the  Son  of 
God,  and  furnished  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  claims 
which  He  put  forth ;  and  they  were  emblems  in  the 
material  sphere,  of  the  blessings  which  He  came  to 
bestow  in  the  spiritual,  and  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  to  be  received  by  those  whom  He  designed 
to  benefit. 

In  our  former  lectures,  however,  we  have  viewed 
them  almost  exclusively  as  identifications  and  authen- 
tications ;  and  it  may  serve  to  give  something  like 
completeness  to  our  consideration  of  the  subject,  as 
well  as  to  bring  us  for  a  season  out  of  the  region  of 
discussion  and  debate,  if  to-day  we  restrict  our  atten- 
tion to  the  spiritual  significance  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ. 

These  wondrous  works  are  not  only  the  seals  by 


*  Ezekiel  iv.  3. 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.  209 

which  the  revelation  made  by  Jesus  is  attested  as 
from  God,  but  they  are  themselves  a  part  of  that  rev- 
elation. They  have  in  themselves,  in  the  circum- 
stances in  connection  with  which  they  were  wrought, 
and  in  the  manner  in  which  they  were  performed, 
much  that  reveals  the  heart  of  God  unto  us,  and  en- 
ables us  to  understand  how  we  are  to  receive  at  His 
hands  the  priceless  blessings  of  regeneration  and  sal- 
vation. By  His  miracles,  no  less  than  by  His  words 
and  by  His  conduct,  Jesus  showed  the  Father  unto  us. 
They  were  signs  not  only  as  indicating  the  source, 
but  also  as  symbolizing  the  nature  of  the  new  life 
which  He  came  to  impart  to  men.  And  it  is  not  dif- 
ficult to  see  the  philosophy  that  lies  beneath  this  view 
of  them.  We  commonly  think  of  them,  indeed,  as 
manifestations  of  the  Divine  power;  but  the  attri- 
butes of  Deity  are  so  inseparable  in  their  unity,  and 
so  harmonious  in  their  operation,  that  we  can  never 
see  only  one  of  them  at  a  time.  Always  they  are 
manifested  together,  so  that  no  matter  which  of 
them  may  be  for  the  moment  most  apparent,  the 
others  are  sure  to  make  their  presence  also  known. 
If  love  be  pre-eminent,  somewhere  we  may  be  sure 
justice  will  be  seen  qualifying  or  conditioning  its 
manifestation ;  if  justice  be  in  the  foreground,  then, 
if  we  look  attentively,  we  shall  see  love  also  at  hand. 
So  when  God  puts  forth  His  power  in  the  miracle,  we 
always  perceive  something  more  than  power — some- 


r 


2IO    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

thing  which  reveals  to  us  the  character  of  Him  whose 
the  power  is,  and  lets  us  see  more  clearly  into  the 
meaning  of  His  dealings  with  us.  We  cannot  have 
the  light  of  the  sun  without  its  heat ;  and  we  cannot 
perceive  the  omnipotence  of  the  miracles  without  at 
the  same  time  discovering  the  merciful  purpose  of  that 
Gospel  in  connection  with  which  they  were  wrought. 
Jesus  Christ  came  to  earth  to  work  the  great  mira- 
cle of  man's  redemption.  That  was  His  dominating 
aim ;  but  in  moving  toward  that,  He  gave  out  of  the 
fulness  of  His  benevolence,  and  as  a  kind  of  alms  to 
those  around  Him,  the  minor  miracles  of  which  the 
gospels  have  preserved  the  record ;  and  each  of  these 
is,  in  its  own  department,  and  from  its  own  angle,  a 
miniature  of  the  one  great  miracle  which  He  is  con- 
tinually working  in  the  regeneration  of  the  human  soul. 
As  the  tree  repeats  itself  in  the  fram.ework  of  every 
leaf  that  hangs  upon  its  branches,  so  the  one  great 
miracle  which  Christ  came  to  perform,  is  reproduced 
in  some  sort  in  each  of  His  miracles;  though,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  no  one  of  them  can  give  us  a 
full  idea  of  His  work,  and  it  is  only  when  we  put  them 
all  together  that  we  have  anything  like  a  complete 
representation  of  all  that  He  has  done  for  humanity. 
Each  of  them  is  patterned  after  some  one  aspect  of 
His  great  mediatorial  and  redemptive  work ;  and  by 
studying  them  all  we  may  come  to  a  better  apprehen- 
sion both  of  it  and  of  Him. 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.  21 1 

Moreover,  we  must  not  forget  here  that  marvel- 
lous correspondence  which  God  has  made  between 
the  outer  and  the  inner,  between  the  material  and  the 
spiritual,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  reason- 
ing from  analogy,  which  gives  its  power  to  the  para- 
ble, and  which  makes  a  pertinent  and  telling  illus- 
tration more  potent  than  any  argument.  The  exter- 
nal is  but  the  visible  image  of  the  internal,  and  the 
poet  was  not  wrong  when  he  proposed  the  question : 

•'What  if  earth 
Be  but  the  shadow  of  heaven,  and  things  therein 
Each  to  the  other  like,  more  than  on  earth  is  thought  ?  " 

When,  therefore,  Christ  puts  forth  His  supernatural 
power  in  the  sphere  of  material  things  and  on  the 
plane  of  common  life,  we  may  be  sure  that  we  have 
in  that  a  type  of  His  working  in  the  sphere  of  grace, 
and  in  the  spiritual  domain.  He  uses  the  seen  to 
help  us  to  the  apprehension  of  the  unseen  ;  and  thus 
each  of  His  miracles  becomes  also  a  parable,  and  is, 
to  those  who  have  the  eye  to  see  it,  luminous  with 
instruction  in  the  nature  of  His  Gospel,  and  the  things 
of  His  kingdom.  In  the  Palazzo  Rospigliosi,  at  Rome, 
Guido's  famous  painting  of  Aurora  is  on  the  ceiling, 
and  therefore  the  visitor  cannot  examine  it  without 
much  discomfort  and  great  disadvantage ;  but  a  mir- 
ror has  been  placed  in  the  room  at  such  an  angle  as 
to  present  a  reflection  of  the  picture  to  the  spectator 
at  a  point  where  he  can  conveniently  study  it  at  leis- 


212    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

ure.  So  the  great  miracle  of  the  renewing  of  the 
soul  is  above  our  inspection  ;  but  in  the  minor  mira- 
cles wrought  by  Jesus  on  men  and  nature,  we  have 
manifold  reflections — as  in  a  mirror — of  that  tran- 
scendent spiritual  work,  and  these  help  us  to  the  bet- 
ter understanding  of  that.  In  the  words  of  Stein- 
meyer,  "  As  a  parable  shows  on  earthly  grounds  the 
reflex  of  a  higher  truth,  in  order  to  serve  as  a  means 
of  explaining  the  latter,  so  a  miracle  which  relieves 
an  earthly  pain  is  the  symbol  of  the  help  within  reach 
for  a  deeper  need.  Our  Lord  cures  the  sick  of  the 
palsy ;  but  the  first  words  of  the  narrative  point  most 
expressly  to  a  higher  region.  He  gives  sight  to  him 
that  was  born  blind ;  but  the  concluding  words  of  the 
history  exclude  the  thought  of  a  mere  deed  of  com- 
passion." * 

Fully  to  illustrate  this  view  of  the  significance  of 
the  Gospel  miracles,  would  require  us  to  take  up  and 
give  a  separate  exposition  of  each  of  them.  But  that 
is  evidently  out  of  the  question  now,  and  so  referring 
you  to  Trench's  Notes,  which  in  this  regard  are  of 
pre-eminent  value,f  I  content  myself  with  the  men- 
tion of  a  few  general  characteristics  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  when  viewed  thus,  as  a  part  of  His  revelation 
of  God's  Gospel  to  men. 


*  "  The  Miracles  of  our  Lord  in  Relation  to  Modem  Criticism,' 
by  F.  L.  Steinmeyer,  p.  46. 
f  See  Appendix,  Note  D. 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


213 


I  begin  with  the  obvious  fact  that  they  are  all  mir- 
acles of  Benevolence.  They  illustrate  the  love  that 
is  at  the  centre  of  the  Gospel ;  and  they  show  in  their 
own  way,  that  '*  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world 
to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world,  through 
him,  might  be  saved."  "Jesus  of  Nazareth  went 
about  doing  good."  His  mission  was  to  bring  His 
Divine  love  to  bear  upon  the  miseries  and  weaknesses 
of  men.  He  healed  the  sick ;  He  cleansed  the  lepers  ; 
He  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  and  unstopped  the 
ears  of  the  deaf ;  He  made  the  lame  to  walk,  and  the 
dumb  to  speak,  and  the  dead  to  live.  He  brought 
down  no  fire  from  heaven  to  consume  His  adversaries ; 
and  when  His  too  impetuous  apostles  suggested  such 
a  course.  He  was  ready  with  the  reply,  "Ye  know  not 
what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of ;  for  the  Son  of  Man 
is  not  come  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them  " 
— a  reply  which  indicated  that,  as  I  have  just  been 
saying,  He  subordinated  the  power  in  His  miracles 
to  the  loving  purpose  of  His  ministry  as  a  whole. 

Now,  in  regard  to  His  performance  of  these  mira- 
cles, two  things  are  apparent,  namely:  first,  that  He 
was  sometimes  Himself  the  prime  mover  in  the  mat- 
ter, and  came  unasked  to  the  help  of  the  sufferer; 
and,  second,  that  He  never  refused  to  perform  a  mir- 
acle at  the  entreaty  of  the  afflicted  or  their  friends. 
He  was  sometimes,  to  adopt  the  language  of  the 
prophet,  "  found  of  them  that  sought  him  not ;"  but 


214    ^P I  RITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

always  they  who  did  seek  Him  found  Him,  if  only 
they  sought  Him  "  with  all  their  heart  and  with  all 
their  mind."  And  it  is  thus  also  with  the  better 
blessings  of  His  salvation.  Some,  like  the  blind  man, 
of  whom  we  read  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  John,  are 
healed  spiritually  almost  before  they  ask  to  be  healed 
at  all.  The  Lord  has  seen  them  and  has  had  compas- 
sion on  them.  But  to  keep  us  from  murmxuring  at 
that,  or  rebelling  against  His  sovereignty,  there  comes 
in  the  other  fact,  that  all  who  really  ask  for  healing  are 
sure  to  obtain  it ;  and  if  you  want  to  know  how  to 
apply  for  deliverance  at  His  hands,  read  these  narra- 
tives and  see  how,  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  Bartimeus 
cried  to  Him  for  his  sight ;  and  the  lepers  came  to 
Him  to  be  cleansed  ;  and  the  Syrophoenician  woman 
made  entreaty  with  Him  for  her  daughter,  then  go, 
and  do  ye  likewise;  and  go  at  once,  for  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  passeth  by,  and  if  you  let  Him  go  past 
altogether,  you  must  remain  not  only  unblessed,  but 
positively  blighted. 

For  there  is  one  miracle  of  judgment ;  though  even 
in  that,  "  mercy  rejoiceth  against  judgment,"  and  when 
we  truly  read  it  we  are  as  much  impressed  by  the 
love  of  its  manner  as  by  the  terror  of  its  matter.  I 
refer,  as  most  of  you  must  be  already  aware,  to  the 
cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree.  How  paltry  and  inad- 
equate an  explanation  of  that  is  given  by  those  who 
would  refer  it  to  an  outburst  of  disappointed  temper 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


215 


on  the  part  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  I  need  not  stay  now  to 
point  out  to  you  ;  for  the  moment  we  put  it  in  its 
true  hght,  all  such  thoughts  regarding  it  are  shamed 
into  insignificance.  It  is  to  be  read  as  an  appendix 
to  the  parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree,*  and  has  its  key 
in  the  fact  that  such  a  tree  was  the  recognized  sym- 
bol of  the  Jewish  nation.  The  year  of  grace,  which 
the  vineyard-dresser  begged  in  the  parable,  was  now 
drawing  near  its  close ;  and  still,  in  spite  of  its  privi- 
leges and  its  foliage,  no  fruit  appeared  upon  the  tree. 
What  was  there  for  it  now  but  the  destruction  which 
had  then  been  threatened,  and  to  which,  after  the 
lapse  of  the  supplicated  delay,  the  dresser  had  himself 
consented  ?  Still,  a  final  warning  was  to  be  given, 
and  while  the  terrible  nature  of  the  punishment  was 
indicated  in  the  immediate  withering  of  the  tree,  the 
tenderness  of  the  love  appears  in  the  fact  that  the 
curse  fell  upon  it,  and  not  yet  upon  the  people.  "  Be- 
hold the  goodness  and  severity  of  God !  "  On  the 
vegetable  product,  severity ;  but  toward  the  people 
goodness,  if  haply  they  might,  even  at  the  eleventh 
hour,  be  led  thereby  to  repentance,  and  so  saved  from 
the  blight  which  was  thus  vividly  symbolized  before 
their  eyes.  Let  the  lesson  which  the  Jews  refused  to 
learn  not  be  lost  upon  us ;  but  while  our  privileges 
continue,  and  our  day  of  grace  lasts,  let  us  turn  unto 


*  Luke  xiii.  6-10. 


2i6    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

the  Lord  with  all  our  hearts  and  make  earnest  suppli- 
cation for  His  mercy. 

But  while  we  note  thus  the  benevolence  which  was 
so  characteristic  of  our  Lord's  supernatural  works,  let 
us  not  fail  to  recognize  also  the  manner  in  which  that 
benevolence  was  manifested,  that  so  we  may  learn 
thereby  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  and  the  extent  of 
its  influence.  The  miracles  of  Jesus  may  be  divided 
into  three  classes.  Under  the  first  we  range  those, 
constituting  the  larger  number  of  them,  in  which  He 
interposed  with  His  divine  power  for  the  purpose  of 
arresting  disease  and  giving  restoration  to  health.  So 
far  were  these  from  being  contrary  to  nature,  that 
they  operated  to  remedy  the-  unnatural  and  the  ab- 
normal. Disease,  in  all  its  forms,  is  a  deviation  from 
man's  normal  condition ;  and  death  is  not  only  non- 
natural,  but  anti-natural.  But  Jesus,  in  healing  the 
sick,  cleansing  the  lepers,  and  raising  the  dead,  inter- 
posed to  bring  back  the  subjects  in  each  case  to  their 
true  natural  condition.  He  restored  each  to  the  nor- 
mal possession  of  himself.  He  brought  them  all  back 
to  health  and  life,  which  is  the  right  ideal  of  physical 
humanity.  Now,  precisely  in  the  same  way,  sin  is 
unnatural  to  the  soul.  Depravity  is  not  true  spiritual 
wholeness  or  health.  It  is  abnormal.  It  is  disease ; 
and  by  the  supernaturalism  of  His  Gospel,  as  applied 
to  men  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Saviour  restores  them  to  their  normal  spiritual  condi- 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


217 


tion.  He  creates  them  anew.  He  healeth  all  their 
diseases,  because  He  forgiveth  all  their  iniquities,  and 
bestows  upon  them  that  new  nature  which  is  the  re- 
production in  them  of  the  image  of  God,  that  sin  had 
blighted  and  defaced.  Those  that  are  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,  He  quickens  into  newness  of  life. 
He  raises  them  up,  through  His  resurrection,  so  that 
they  set  their  affections  on  things  that  are  above. 
He  cleanses  them  from  the  leprosy  of  sin  ;  opens  their 
eyes  to  behold  the  wonderful  things  of  His  law ;  un- 
stops their  ears  to  hear  His  voice ;  and  causes  the 
tongue  of  the  dumb  to  sing  His  praise.  He  is  the 
restorer  of  humanity  to  its  lost  ideal ;  and  gives  the 
man  back  to  himself  "redeemed,  regenerated,  and 
disenthralled ;"  so  that  he  may  find  his  "  perfect  free- 
dom "  in  the  filial  service  of  his  God.  What  a  flood 
of  light  is  cast  thus  on  the  work  of  Christ  in  its  influ- 
ence on  individual  men  by  the  contemplation  of  this 
class  of  His  supernatural  works ! 

Under  the  second  division  of  His  miracles  we  range 
those  by  which  He  enlarged  and  multiplied  the  exist- 
ing resources  of  human  happiness.  He  grafted  the 
supernatural  upon  the  natural,  and  thereby  purified 
its  character  and  widened  its  influence.  Just  as 
Moses,  or  rather  God  through  the  instrumentality  of 
Moses,  provided  in  the  manna  a  substance  closely 
allied  to  a  natural  product  of  the  wilderness,  and  in- 
creased the  measure,  as  well  as  prolonged  the  period, 
10 


2l8    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

of  its  production  ;  so  Jesus,  in  the  miracle  of  the 
loaves  and  fishes,  multipHed  natural  articles  of  food, 
and,  in  that  of  Cana,  heightened  the  water  into  wine. 
Now  we  have  herein  a  symbol  of  the  influence  of  the 
Gospel  on  human  society.  That  which  is  already 
valuable  in  it,  is  made  more  valuable  than  ever,  and 
is  increased  so  as  to  become  the  possession  of  multi- 
tudes, who  but  for  His  influence  would  never  have 
enjoyed  it  at  all.  The  water  of  earthly  fellowship  is 
transmuted  into  the  wine  of  spiritual  communion ; 
and,  in  this  regard,  the  very  magnitude  of  the  quan- 
tity of  wine  that  was  miraculously  produced,  and 
that  has  been  such  a  stumbling-block  to  those  who 
cannot  see  farther  than  a  favorite  theory  will  allow 
them,  becomes  a  most  interesting  and  suggestive 
thing,  indicating,  as  it  does,  the  boundless  capacity  of 
the  Gospel  for  ministering  to  the  highest  enjoyment 
of  mankind.  The  bread  of  ordinary  food  and  the 
wine  of  ordinary  drink  do  both  alike  become  sacra- 
mental at  the  miracle-working  touch  of  Jesus,  and 
both  alike  are  lifted  by  Him  into  the  higher  symbol- 
ism that  links  them  on  to  spiritual  sustenance  and 
spiritual  elevation  ;  so  that  the  one  connects  itself 
with  the  words,  "  I  am  the  Bread  of  life,"  and  the 
other  with  the  expression,  "  I  am  the  true  Vine."  ^ 
Common  things  are  hallowed  for  us  by  the  Gospel ; 


*  See  Appendix,  Note  E. 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.    2 19 

and  the  real  blessings  of  human  life  are  by  it  multi- 
plied and  sublimated ;  that  is  for  us  the  significance 
of  this  class  of  our  Lord's  supernatural  works. 

Under  the  third  division  of  His  miracles,  we  range 
those  which  were  evidently  designed  for  the  warning 
or  training  or  testing  of  His  followers.  To  this  be- 
longs the  walking  of  Peter  on  the  waters ;  which,  as 
even  the  dullest  reader  may  discover,  was  a  rehearsal 
in  symbol,  and  therefore  a  loving  warning,  of  all  the 
incidents  connected  with  that  impulsive  disciple's 
over-confidence  and  denial  of  his  Lord.  In  the  "  Bid 
me  come  unto  thee  upon  the  water,"  we  have  the 
parable  of  the  ejaculation,  "  Though  all  men  should 
deny  thee,  yet  will  I  never  deny  thee ; "  in  the  be- 
ginning to  sink,  we  have  the  prophecy  of  his  fall ;  in 
the  cry,  "  Lord,  save  me,  I  perish,"  we  have  the  fore- 
cast shadow  of  the  penitential  prayer  which  saved 
Peter  from  settling  into  the  despair  of  Judas ;  and 
haply,  in  the  day  when  the  son  of  Jonas  wept  those 
bitter  tears,  he  might  feel  that  if  he  had  taken  the 
hint  thus  kindly  given  by  his  Lord  so  long  before,  he 
might  have  been  saved  from  the  humiliation  of  his 
fall ;  while  in  the  remembrance  of  the  hand  held  out 
to  catch  him  as  he  was  going  down  beneath  the 
waves,  there  would  be  to  him  during  these  dark  days 
of  sorrow  the  prediction  of  his  ultimate  restoration. 
Both  restorations  were  alike  supernatural ;  and  in 
both   alike   the   love   of    the    Redeemer   seeking   to 


220    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OP  THE  MIRACLES. 

train  His  servant  for  after-usefulness  is  conspicuously 
manifest. 

Under  this  class  also  we  would  put  the  healing  of 
the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood,  and  mark,  in  her 
case,  how  a  weak  faith  was  nourished  into  strength, 
so  that  she  who  came  with  trembling  timidity  was 
enabled  at  the  last  to  tell  out  before  them  all  every- 
thing that  was  in  her  heart.  Here,  too,  belong  the 
healing  of  the  Syrophcenician  woman's  daughter ; 
that  of  the  centurion's  servant,  and  that  of  Jairus* 
daughter ;  the  first  showing  how  a  strong  faith  is  de- 
veloped into  expression ;  the  second  how  a  mighty 
faith  is  rewarded ;  and  the  third  how  an  almost  ex- 
piring confidence  is  kept  burning,  and  the  '' bruised 
reed  "  is  straightened  into  strength. 

And  to  mention  no  more,  we  put  in  this  category 
also  the  second  miracle  of  the  loaves,  whereby  the 
merely  carnal  among  the  crowd  were  winnowed  away, 
and  those  only  remained  with  Him  who,  like  Peter, 
could  say,  "  To  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life,  and  we  believe  and  are  sure  that 
thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  To 
borrow  the  words  of  another  here :  This  "  was  a  sym- 
bolic, didactic,  critical  miracle.  It  was  meant  to  teach 
and  also  to  test,  to  supply  a  text  for  the  subsequent 
sermon,  and  a  touchstone  to  try  the  character  of  those 
who  had  followed  Jesus  with  such  enthusiasm.  The 
miraculous  feast  in  the  wilderness  was  meant  to  say 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.  221 

to  the  multitude  just  what  our  sacramental  feast  says 
to  us:  'I,  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God  Incarnate,  am  the 
bread  of  Hfe.     What  this  bread  is  to  your  bodies,  I 
myself  am  to  your  souls.'     And  the  communicants  in 
that  feast  were  to  be  tested  by  the  way  in  which  they 
regarded  the  transaction.     The  spiritual  would  see  in 
it  a  sign  of  Christ's  divine  dignity,  and  a  seal  of  His 
saving  grace  ;   the  carnal  would  rest  simply  in  the 
outward  fact  that  they  had  eaten  of  the  loaves  and 
were  filled,  and  would  take  occasion  from  what  had 
happened  to  indulge  in  high  hopes  of  temporal  felicity 
under  the  benign  reign  of  the  Prophet  and  the  King 
who  had  made  His  appearance  among  them."*   Thus, 
by  this  miracle,  and  its  exposition  in  the  discourse 
which  followed,  Jesus  did  with  His  adherents  what 
Gideon  did  with  his  army  when  he  led  them  to  the 
brook  to  drink.     He  separated  the  spurious  from  the 
true  ;  the  carnal  from  the  spiritual. 

But  what  need  I  more  here?  I  have  surely  said 
enough  to  show  you  that  they  who  fail  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  the  symbolic  purpose  of  these  wondrous 
works,  deprive  themselves  of  the  instruction  which 
they  were  designed  to  impart. 

But  I  hasten  to  direct  your  attention  to  another 
peculiarity  connected  with  the  miracles  of  Christ, 
namely:  the  fact  that  famUn^Him  was  needed  as  a 

~7i;;;;;;^Balmain    Bruce,    D.D.,    "The    Training    of    the 
Twelve,"  p.  120. 


222    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

prerequisite  to  the  reception  of  benefit  or  blessing 
through  them.  He  never  performed  them  for  the 
satisfaction  of  curiosity,  or  for  the  gratification  of 
those  who  seemed  to  wish  to  put  Him  to  the  test  of 
an  experiment.  During  His  temptation,  Satan  sought 
to  induce  Him  to  cast  Himself  from  the  pinnacle  of 
the  temple — as  if  to  give  a  sign  to  the  worshippers 
that  thronged  its  courts,  and  so  bring  them  flocking 
around  His  standard.  But  He  refused  to  use  any 
such  sensational  means  for  the  founding  of  a  king- 
dom which  He  knew  was  spiritual.  That,  however, 
was  not  by  any  means  the  last  time  that  the  same 
demand  was  made  of  Him.  The  Jews  sought  after 
a  sign  ;  and  repeatedly  they  asked  Him,  for  their  sim- 
ple gratification,  to  put  forth  His  supernatural  power. 
But  on  all  such  occasions  He  saw  the  Satanic  spirit 
revealing  itself,  and  He  invariably  declined.  He  knew 
to  what  His  yielding  would  have  led,  even  the  utter 
secularizing  of  His  kingdom,  and  the  complete  paral- 
ysis of  His  spiritual  power — just  as  in  later  days  the 
attempt  to  supply  marvels  at  the  popular  demand 
has  always  ended  in  undermining  the  true  influence 
of  the  Christian  Church — and  therefore  He  stood  firm. 
Neither,  again,  did  He  perform  His  miracles  in  the 
midst  of  those,  or  for  the  benefit  of  those,  who  were 
antagonistic  to  Himself.  You  remember  that  sug- 
gestive saying   of   Matthew*  concerning  Nazareth: 


*  Matt.  xiii.  58. 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.    223 

"  He  did  not  many  mighty  works  there,  because  of 
their  unbehef  ;'*  and  the  same  evangeHst  tells  us  that 
He  said  to  the  two  blind  men  in  the  house,  "  Believe 
ye  that  I  am  able  to  do  this  ?"*  and  that  His  rule  was, 
"  According  to  your  faith  be  it  unto  you."f  Where 
there  was  no  faith  in  Him,  no  virtue  went  out  of  Him  ; 
but  the  poorest  suppliant  that  came  to  Him  with 
faith,  even  though  it  were  only  as  a  grain  of  mustard- 
seed,  departed  with  the  blessing  sought. 

Now,  who  does  not  see  how  all  this  illustrates  the 
method  in  which  we  become  partakers  of  the  bless- 
ings of  His  grace?  His  salvation  is  bestowed  on 
"whosoever  believeth;"  but  without  faith  in  Him 
we  derive  no  blessing  from  Him.  Not  on  the  suspi- 
cious, the  envious,  or  the  antagonistic  does  He  confer 
His  favors,  but  only  on  those  who  receive  Him,  and 
unto  them  He  gives  "  power  to  become  the  sons  of 
God."  This  is  the  principle  that  runs  through  the 
administration  of  His  spiritual  kingdom  ;  and  there- 
fore we  are  not  surprised  to  find  it  prominently  recog- 
nized in  works,  the  performance  of  which  was  designed 
to  be  symbolical  of  the  manner  in  which  He  makes 
men  partakers  of  His  great  salvation.  But  the  im- 
portance of  its  recognition,  even  in  these  days,  will 
be  apparent  to  all  who  remember  the  absurd  proposal 
which  was  made  a  few  years  ago  by  a  medical  man 


Matt.  ix.  28.  f  Ibid.,  ix.  29. 


224   SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

of  eminence,  for  the  putting  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer 
to  the  test  of  experiment,  by  the  selection  of  a  ward 
in  an  hospital  whose  patients  were  to  be  treated  alone 
by  prayer ;  while  those  in  the  other  wards  were  to  be 
left  simply  and  solely  to  the  physicians,  without  any 
appeal  to  God.  The  very  idea  of  such  a  test  was 
born  out  of  unbelief.  It  was  as  if  we  should  stand 
by  and  say,  "  Let  be,  and  let  us  see  whether  there  be 
any  God,  or  any  virtue  in  prayer  to  Him  at  all ;"  and 
just  as  Jesus  refused  in  answer  to  a  similar  demand 
to  come  down  from  the  cross,*  so  He  will  always 
refuse  to  answer  prayer  on  any  such  terms.  While, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  His  miracles  make  constantly 
apparent,  the  humble  suppliant  whose  prayer  to  Him 
is  the  child  of  confidence  in  Him,  and  not  of  suspicion 
of  Him,  will  never  go  unblessed.  If,  therefore,  men 
wish  to  receive  the  salvation  which  He  has  wrought 
out  for  them,  let  them  come  in  faith  to  Him,  and  they 
will  not  be  sent  empty  away.  The  reality  of  these 
miracles  which  He  wrought  on  earth,  is  a  prophecy 
and  a  pledge  that  He  is  able  and  willing  to  give  them 
the  spiritual  things  of  which  they  are  the  symbols. 
"  Be  not  afraid,  only  believe."  "All  things  jare  possi- 
ble to  him  that  believeth."  These  are  the  sayings 
which,  in  this  regard,  the  Gospel  miracles  make  spe- 
cially emphatic. 


Matt,  xxvii.  40-43,  49. 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.    225 

But  while  thus  in  the  working  of  His  miracles  the 
Lord  Jesus  conditioned  the  forth-putting  of  His 
power  on  the  faith  of  those  who  made  application  for 
it,  we  cannot  but  remark  that,  within  the  natural 
and  human  sphere.  He  put  the  highest  honor  on  the 
use  of  means.  He  never  did  by  miracle  what  the 
people  were  able  without  miracle  to  do  for  themselves. 
By  miracle  the  dead  Lazarus  was  recalled  to  life  ;  but 
before  the  miracle  the  stone  was  rolled  away  from  the 
cave's  mouth ;  and,  after  it,  the  grave  clothes  were 
loosed  from  him ;  and  both  by  human  hands ;  all  to 
teach  us  that  while  the  actual  recreation  of  the  soul 
is  the  work  of  God,  there  are  some  things  preparatory 
to  that  work  which  are  fairly  within  the  compass  of 
human  ability  ;  and  some  things  subsequent  to  it, 
and  subservient  to  it,  which  men  must  do  for  them- 
selves, if  the  newly -imparted  life  is  to  have  the 
freest  and  the  fullest  play. 

Nor  is  this  all ;  in  the  impartation  of  that  life  itself 
one  may  learn  from  many  of  the  Master's  miracles 
that  everything  is  made  to  depend  on  the  willinghood 
of  the  individual  to  be  blessed,  and  his  attempt  to 
act  as  if  he  had  already  received  the  blessing.  Christ 
often  wrought  His  cures  by  issuing  commands,  obe- 
dience to  which  implied  that  the  cures  had  already 
been  imparted.  Thus  He  said  to  the  man  with  the 
withered  arm,  "  Stretch  forth  thine  hand ;"  and  to 
the  paralytic,  "Arise,  take   up  thy  bed  and  walk." 


10' 


226   SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

Neither  of  them  had  in  himself  the  power  to  obey. 
It  was  their  very  disease  that  they  had  not.  Yet 
each,  believing  that  Jesus  was  not  mocking  him,  made 
the  attempt,  and  lo  !  in  the  forth-putting  of  the  effort 
he  discovered  that  the  Lord  had  been  beforehand 
with  him  and  had  already  conferred  on  him  the  cure 
he  sought.  Thus,  through  obedience,  which  was  an 
evidence  of  faith,  the  poor  diseased  ones  received  the 
blessing.  And  it  is  the  same  still  in  spiritual  things. 
Men  often  debate  which  is  first  in  the  order  of  salva- 
tion, regeneration  or  faith  ?  but  the  whole  controversy 
is  about  as  absurd  as  if  on€  should  ask.  Which  was  first 
in  Lazarus,  his  restoration  to  life,  or  his  coming  out 
of  the  grave  ?  or.  Which  was  first  in  the  paralytic,  the 
reception  of  his  cure,  or  his  rising  up  and  walking  ? 
The  simple  truth  is,  that  in  the  experience  of  each, 
these  two  things  were  simultaneous.  The  cure  was 
obtained  in  the  effort  to  arise  ;  and  the  life  was  made 
manifest  in  the  coming  forth  of  the  dead  one  from 
the  cave.  And  from  the  opposite  side,  this  must  be 
declared,  that  if  the  paralytic  had  not  tried  to  obey 
the  command,  he  would  have  had  no  cure.  We  can- 
not tell  in  any  thing  where  the  human  agency  ceases 
and  the  divine  begins ;  and  the  boundary  between  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural,  especially  in  the  region 
of  spiritual  experience,  cannot  well  be  defined.  Yet 
this  is  always  true :  God  honors  faith  and  obedience ; 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES.    227 

SO  that  we  may  be  certain  that  if  we  believe  and  obey 
Him,  we  shall  be  truly  blessed. 

But  enough.  I  have  said  sufficient  to  convince 
you  that  the  miracles  of  Jesus  are  not  mere  arbitrary 
manifestations  of  power,  but  are  all  themselves  a  part 
of  the  revelation  which  He  has  given  us  of  the 
grace  of  God.  They  are  not  "a  conglomerate  of 
marvellous  anecdotes  accidentally  heaped  together, 
but  parts  of  a  great  organic  whole,  of  which  every 
part  is  in  vital  coherence  with  all  other.""^  This  is  in 
itself  an  argument  for  their  reality  of  no  mean  force ; 
for  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  any  other  cycles  of 
miracles,  save  those  of  which  we  read  in  Scripture. 
But  I  am  speaking  of  them  to-day  exegetically,  and 
not  apologetically,  and  in  this  view  of  them  they  are 
acted  parables,  having  as  real  and  as  large  a  place  in 
the  instruction  which  Christ  imparted  as  that  pos- 
sessed by  His  discourses  themselves.  They  proclaim 
His  mightiness  to  save.  They  reveal  the  depth  of 
His  love.  They  indicate  the  manner  in  which  He 
blesses  the  souls  of  men.  They  give  us  the  assur- 
ance that  as  really  as  He  healed  the  bodies  of  those 
who  were  afflicted.  He  will  cure  our  souls ;  and  that 
as  surely  as  He  rose  again  from  the  dead,  so  surely 
"  all  that  are  in  their  graves  shall  hear  His  voice  and 
shall  come  forth  :  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the 


*  Trench,  "  Notes  on  the  Miracles,"  p.  40. 


228    SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto 
the  resurrection  of  condemnation."*  The  outer  is  the 
prophecy  of  the  inner,  and  the  conjunct  view  we  have 
taken  of  the  wondrous  works  of  the  Lord,  gives  new 
meaning  and  power  to  His  loving  invitation,  "  Come 
unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and 
I  will  give  you  rest." 

As  I  close  this  series  of  discourses,  which  has 
brought  me  once  more  into  loving  fellowship  with 
the  brethren  of  this  Theological  faculty,  and  with  you, 
my  dear  young  friends,  who  are  so  soon  to  go  forth 
as  messengers  of  God's  mercy  to  your  fellow-men, 
there  rises  up  before  me  a  vision  of  that  scene  which 
I  have  always  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
which  any  one  of  the  sacred  penmen  has  depicted. 
*'  Now,  when  the  sun  was  setting,  all  they  that  had 
any  sick  with  divers  diseases  brought  them  unto  him  ; 
and  he  laid  his  hands  on  every  one  of  them  and  healed 
them."t  Was  there  ever  anything  more  delightful  ? 
The  westering  sun  just  disappearing  behind  the 
mountain,  was  reddening  with  its  softest  radiance 
the  surface  of  the  Galilean  lake ;  and  the  sick  ones  of 
Capernaum  were  carried  to  His  feet,  while  their  bear- 
ers united  with  them  in  their  pleadings  for  His  help , 
and — no  niggard  He  in  the  dispensation  of  His  bless- 


*  John  V.  28,  2g.  f  Luke  iv.  40. 


SPIRITUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


229 


ings — He  healed  them  all.  But  as  I  gaze  on,  the  vis- 
ion widens  from  Capernaum  to  a  world,  and  still  I 
see  the  blessed  Redeemer  exercising  His  divine  and 
chosen  vocation  as  the  Healer  of  Humanity.  They 
bring  to  Him  "from  every  clime  and  coast"  the  sin- 
sick  sons  of  Adam — the  guilty,  the  backsliding,  the 
burdened,  the  bereaved,  the  sorrowful,  the  forlorn, 
the  tempted,  the  weary,  the  perplexed — and  "  he  lays 
his  hands  on  every  one  of  them  and  heals  them." 
What  a  hope  is  here  for  this  sin-blasted  earth !  and 
what  a  work  is  that,  beloved  young  brethren,  to  which 
you  are  called — the  bringing  of  the  burdened  to  the 
feet  of  Jesus?  Realize,  I  pray  you,  the  grandeur 
and  nobleness  of  your  mission ;  and  as  you  go  forth 
to  your  several  spheres,  carry  this  with  you  as  the 
exposition  and  inspiration  of  your  ministry :  "  He 
that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  he  do 
also ;  and  greater  works  than  these  shall  he  do,  be- 
cause I  go  unto  my  Father.""^ 


*  John  xiv.  12. 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  A.— Page  22. 
THE   LOGIC    OF   HUXLEY. 

In  connection  with  the  atheistic  form  of  the  evolution 
theory,  I  venture  to  reproduce  here  a  letter  to  the  New  York 
Tribune  on  Huxley's  Lectures,  which  were  delivered  in  New 
York  four  years  ago.  I  have  been  frequently  asked  for  copies 
of  the  letter,  and  have  been  assured  that  its  reissue  in  this 
permanent  form  will  be  welcomed  by  many.  I  have  made 
only  one  or  two  verbal  changes,  leaving  the  argument  as  it 
originally  stood. 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Tribune  : 

Sir  : — Will  you  grant  me  a  portion  of  your  space  for  an 
examination  of  the  logic  of  Prof.  Huxley  as  that  comes  out 
in  the  lectures  recently  delivered  by  him  in  this  city  ?  As  a 
layman  in  science  I  might  have  some  delicacy  in  venturing 
into  that  domain  which  he  and  his  coadjutors  have  made 
peculiarly  their  own,  but  logic  is  the  same  in  its  application 
to  every  department  of  inquiry,  and  a  fallacy  or  an  assump- 
tion in  the  reasoning  of  a  man  of  science  may  be  detected 
and  exposed  by  one  who  is  obliged,  as  I  am,  to  take  on  trust 
the  facts  on  which  the  argument  is  alleged  to  be  founded. 

Let  it  be  understood,  then,  that  I  have  no  fault  to  find  with 
Mr.  Huxley  as  a  discoverer  of  facts  or  as  an  exponent  of  com- 
parative anatomy.  In  both  of  these  respects  he  is  beyond  all 
praise  of  mine,  and  I  am  ready  to  sit  at  his  feet ;  but  when 
he  begins  to  reason  from  the  facts  which  he  sets  forth,  then, 
like  every  other  reasoner,  he  is  amenable  to  the  laws  of  argu- 
mentation, and  his  conclusions  are  to  be  tested  by  the  rela- 

(233) 


234 


APPENDIX,— NOTE  A. 


tion  which  they  bear  to  the  premises  which  he  has  advanced, 
and  by  the  proof  which  he  furnishes  for  the  premises  them- 
selves. 

Let  me  say,  also,  that  I  have  no  prejudice  against  evolu- 
tion, if  that  shall  ever  be  fairly  and  fully  established.  I  be- 
lieve that  it  may  be  held  in  harmony  with  theism,  and  with 
a  sincere  acceptance  of  the  Word  of  God.  I  am  a  disciple  of 
one  who  has  taught  me  in  all  things,  and  at  every  hazard,  to 
follow  truth ;  and  the  Gospel  which  1  believe  and  preach 
leads  me  to  say,  with  John  Locke,  that  I  am  "  more  con- 
cerned to  quit  and  renounce  any  opinion  of  my  own,  than 
oppose  that  of  another,  when  truth  appears  against  it ;  for 
'tis  truth  alone  I  seek,  and  that  will  always  be  welcome  to 
me,  when  or  whencesoever  it  comes."  But  then  -it  must  be 
clearly  proved  to  be  the  truth,  and  it  is  in  the  proof  that  Prof. 
Huxley  has  advanced  that  the  weakness  of  his  case  appears. 

His  reasonings  are  mainly  contained  in  his  third  lecture, 
but  before  proceeding  to  consider  them  it  may  be  convenient 
to  offer  one  or  two  strictures  on  some  statements  made  by 
him  in  the  first  and  second.  He  begins  with  enumerating 
three  hypotheses  regarding  the  order  of  nature.  These  are  : 
The  eternity  of  things  as  they  are ;  the  Miltonic  theory,  or 
the  creation  of  the  world  in  six  natural  days  ;  and  the  theory 
of  evolution,  which  finds  in  a  gelatinous  mass  the  common 
foundation  of  all  life.  These,  he  says,  "  so  far  as  he  knows, 
are  the  only  three  views."  He  does. not  allege,  in  so  many 
words,  that  they  are  the  only  possible  theories  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  but  he  reasons  as  if  they  were,  and  evidently  wishes  us 
to  conclude  that  the  elimination  of  the  former  two  estab- 
lishes the  third.  But  as  the  force  of  a  dilemma  is  destroyed 
when  a  third  alternative,  equally  explanatory  of  the  facts,  is 
advanced,  so  the  conclusiveness  of  a  /r/-lemma  is  nullified 
when  a  fourth  hypothesis  equally  adapted  to^meet  the  case 
is  set  forth.  Now  there  are  many  among  us  who  cannot 
accept  any  one  of  the  three  hypotheses  which  he  has  sug- 
gested, but  believe  in  creation  in  series ;  and  there  are  others 
who  are  almost  prepared  to  accept  evolution,  provided  it  be 
put  forth  as  an  explanation  of  the  mode  in  which  a  presiding 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  A.  235 

intelligence  has  brought  things  as  they  are  into  existence. 
This  being  the  case,  his  classification  is  defective,  and  the 
force  which  his  first  lecture  was  designed  to  have,  in  the  way 
of  clearing  the  ground  of  everything  but  evolution,  is  com- 
pletely neutralized. 

But  besides  this  logical  blemish,  I  have  to  complain  of  a 
very  unphilosophical  bias  which  ever)rwhere  appears  in  his 
treatment  of  the  idea  of  creation.     He  seems  to  be  studiously 
fair,  and  we  are  apt  to  be  imposed  upon  by  the  show  of  can- 
dor which  he  affects,  until  we  go  beneath  the  surface,  when 
we  perceive  that  beneath  the  veil  of  fair-sounding  words  he 
hides  the  most  cynical  of  sneers.     Thus  he  says  :  "  Though 
we  are  quite  clear  about  the  constancy  of  nature  at  the  pres- 
ent time  and  in  the  present  order  of  things,  it  by  no  means 
follows  necessarily  that  we  are  justified  in  expanding  this 
generalization  into  the  past,  and  in  denying  absolutely  that 
there  may  have  been  a  time  when  events  did  not  follow  a 
fixed  order,  %uhen  the  relations  of  cause  and  effect  were  not 
fixed  and  definite,  and  when  external  agencies  did  not  inter- 
vene i7i  the  general  order  of  nature.    Cautious  men  will  admit 
that  such  a  change  in  the  order  of  nature  may  have  been  pos- 
sible, just  as  every  candid  thinker  will  admit  that  there  may  be 
a  world  in  which  two  and  two  do  not  make  four,  a?td  in  which 
two  straight  lines  do  inclose  a  space"     Now  it  is  difficult  to 
characterize  this  language  without  using  stronger  words  than 
courtesy  might  sanction.     But  what  are  we  to  say  when  a 
man  claiming  to  be  a  philosopher  affirms  (no,  not  affirms 
for  if  he  had  said  it  out  plainly  we  should  have  had  more 
respect  for  him,  but  let  me  say  rather,  insinuates)  that  to 
allege  that  the  universe  was  created  is  virtually  to  declare 
that  there  was  a  time  "  when  the  relations  of  cause  and  effect 
were  not  fixed  and  definite  "—as  if  there  could  be  any  more 
definite  relation  as  cause  and  effect  than  that  between  the 
creator  and  the  creature  !     And  what  are  we  to  think  when 
it  is  implied  that  to  believe  in  creation  is  as  absurd  as  to  be- 
lieve that  there  is  a  world  where  "  two  and  two  do  not  make 
four,  and  where  two  straight  lines  inclose  a  space  ?  "     Every 
one  must  see  that  such  a  world  is  an  impossibility,  for  if  two 


236  APPENDIX.— NOTE  A. 

and  two  anywhere  can  make  something  different  from  four, 
then  two  must  mean  something  different  in  such  a  place  from 
its  meaning  heie,  or  the  whole  science  of  numbers  here  rests 
on  a  foundation  of  sand.  To  say  that  creation  may  be  possible, 
as  that  is  possible,  is  only  to  assert  its  impossibility  in  the 
most  offensive  way.  Yet  all  this  is  slipped  out  in  the  most 
innocent-looking  way,  as  if  he  were  making  a  very  generous 
concession  to  the  creationists,  whereas,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is 
a  most  insulting  denial  of  the  very  possibility  of  their  theory, 
and  that,  too,  without  one  word  of  offered  proof,  and  under 
color  of  its  being  the  utterance  of  a  cautious  man  and  a 
candid  thinker. 

Again,  in  vindicating  himself  for  taking  Milton's  account 
of  the  creation,  as  an  exposition  of  that  usually  held,  he 
affirms  that  "  //  is  not  his  btisi7iess  to  say  what  the  Hebrew 
text  co7itains  and  what  it  does  7iot"  and  after  referring  to  the 
opinion  of  those  who  hold  that  the  days  of  the  creation  in 
Genesis  were  not  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each,  but  periods, 
he  says  "  a  person  who  is  not  a  Hebrew  scholar  ca7i  only  stand 
by  and  admire  the  marvellous  flexibility  of  a  language  which 
adtnits  of  such  diverse  interpretations."  But  the  professor 
does  not  need  to  be  a  Hebrew  scholar  in  order  to  be  familiar 
with  such  "  marvellous  flexibility  "  of  language.  He  knows 
that  we  have  the  very  same  "  diverse  interpretations  "  of  the 
word  "  day  "  in  English,  for  if  I  should  say  to  him  that  the 
day  has  gone  by  when  a  foolish  sneer  can  be  accepted  as  a 
forcible  argument,  he  would  understand  at  once  that  I  was 
not  speaking  of  any  such  definite  period  as  twenty-four  hours. 
These  are  expressions  quite  unworthy  of  a  man  who  makes 
such  professions  of  impartiality,  and  they  lead  us  to  be  most 
suspicious  of  his  language,  at  the  very  moment  when  he  is 
most  humbly  declaring  that  he  is  incompetent  to  form  a 
judgment. 

His  second  lecture  is  out  of  its  proper  place.  In  logical 
order  it  ought  to  have  come  last.  It  is  not  a  proof,  or  a 
preparation  for  a  proof,  but  rather  a  sort  of  alleged  corrobo- 
ration of  a  proof  which  is  to  be  afterward  furnished.  Its  only 
purpose,  like  that  of  lago's  rehearsal  of  Cassio's  dream,  is  to 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  A.  337 

*'  help  to  thicken  other  proofs  which  do  demonstrate  thinly." 
But  had  it  come  after  the  demonstration  so-called  it  would 
have  been  received  as  an  indication  of  the  consciousness  on 
the  professor's  own  part  that  his  demonstration  was  not  con- 
vincing after  all,  and  so  it  is  dexterously  employed  as  a  kind 
of  pioneer  to  prepare  the  way.     There  are  in  it  the  same 
characteristics  as  in  the  first.     He  is  constantly  seeming  to 
make  admissions  which  are  found  at  length  to  be  no  admis- 
sions at  all.     He  allows  that  the  forms  of  species  are  persist- 
ent, and  that  there  is  little  or  nothing  in  the  geologic  records 
that  sustains  his  position  ;  but  he  assumes  that  there  are  de- 
fects in  these  records,  and  then  on  the  top  of  that  assumes 
again  that  in  these  gaps  the  missing  links  in  the  process  of 
evolution  will  be  found.     He  will  not  hear  of  any  lacima 
between  the  first  and  second  verses  of  Genesis,  and  when 
the  theologian  intimates  that  between  the  "  beginning  "  of 
the  one  and  the  "  chaos  "  of  the  other,  there  may  have  been 
an  interval  long  enough  for  all  the  requirements  of  geology, 
he  "  stands  by  and  admires  "  the  flexibility  of  interpretations 
of  which  the  Scriptures  are  capable.     But  it  is  time  that  we 
proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  much-heralded  demon- 
stration of  evolution  to  which  his  third  lecture  was  devoted. 
And  here  any  one  accustomed  to  reasoning  cannot  fail  to 
be  struck  with  the  loose  and,  indeed,  misleading  way  in  which 
he  employs  the  term  "  demonstration."    As  defined  by  Web- 
ster, that  word  means,  in  its  logical  sense,  "  the  act  of  prov- 
ing by  the  syllogistic  process,  or  the  proof  itself ;"  and  in  its 
mathematical,  "  a  course  of  reasoning  showing  that  a  certain 
result  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  assumed  premises,  these 
premises  being  definitions,  axioms,  and  previously  established 
propositions."     Now  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  determine  in 
which  of  these  two  senses  Huxley  uses  the  word,  but  from 
his  reference  to  the  Copernican  astronomy,  which  depends 
on  the  exactest  mathematical  calculations,  it  is  evident  that, 
in  his  conclusion  at  least,  he  means  us  to  take  it  in  its  mathe- 
matical sense.     But  in  his  former  lectures  he  employs  it  sim- 
ply in  its  logical  sense,  as  signifying  proof — or  that  which  is 
put  forth  as  proof.     He  distinguishes  between  the  evidence  of 


238 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  A. 


testimony  and  the  evidence  of  circumstance,  and  tells  us  that 
he  has  to  do  only  with  the  latter.  But  circumstantial  evi- 
dence never  can  amount  to  a  demonstration  unless,  indeed, 
we  are  content  to  use  that  word  as  Huxley  has  done  in  the 
concluding  sentence  of  his  first  lecture,  when  he  says :  "  I  shall 
endeavor  to  show  that  there  is  a  third  kind  of  evidejice,  which, 
bei7tg  as  complete  as  any  evidence  which  we  can  hope  to  obtain 
07t  such  a  subject,  and  being  wholly  and  entirely  in  favor  of 
evolution,  may  fairly  be  called  demonstrative  evidence  of  its 
having  occurred"  That  is  to  say,  when  we  have  as  much 
evidence  as  we  can  hope  to  obtain  on  any  subject,  provided 
it  be  in  favor  of  our  theory  regarding  it,  we  may  call  it  de- 
monstration !  A  very  comfortable  canon  surely,  for  by  it  we 
may  demonstrate  a  great  many  other  things  than  ev/)lution. 

But,  as  everybody  knows,  it  is  not  enough,  in  order  to 
prove  a  case  from  circumstantial  evidence,  that  whatever 
evidence  we  have  be  in  favor  of  our  theory ;  it  is  required 
also  that  no  other  hypothesis  can  account  for  the  circum- 
stances. I  have  been  furnished  by  a  distinguished  legal 
friend  with  a  statement  of  the  principles  which  regulate  the 
value  of  circumstantial  evidence,  which  may  be  thus  con- 
densed :  "  The  process  of  proof  by  circumstantial  evidence 
consists  in  reasoning  from  such  facts  as  are  known  or  proved, 
and  thence  establishing  such  as  are  conjectured  to  exist. 
The  process  is  fatally  vicious  ;  first,  if  any  material  circum- 
stance from  which  we  seek  to  deduce  the  conclusion  depends 
itself  on  conjt.<:ture  ;  and,  second,  if  the  known  facts  are  not 
such  as  to  exclude  to  a  reasonable  degree  of  certainty  every 
other  hypothesis." 

Now,  tried  by  these  two  tests,  the  professor's  argument  is 
a  failure.  For,  to  take  the  latter  first,  after  setting  forth  the 
horses  of  his  new  apocalypse,  in  order,  and  showing  the 
gradual  ascent  of  one  above  the  other,  in  the  two  respects 
which  he  so  minutely  specifies,  he  makes  no  attempt  to 
prove  that  the  existence  of  these  fossils  is  inconsistent  with 
every  other  theory  save  that  of  evolution.  He  only  says,  in 
the  naYvest  possible  manner:  "  The  only  other  hypothesis 
that  could  be  framed  would  be  this,  that  the  anchitherium, 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  A.  239 

the  hipparion,  and  the  horse  had  been  created  separately  and 
at  separate  epochs  of  time,  and  for  that  there  could  be  no 
sciefitific  evidejice"  But  where  is  the  evidence,  scientific  or 
otherwise,  that  there  was  evolution  ?  We  sec  these  fossils. 
Huxley  says  that  they  are  as  they  are  because  the  higher 
evolved  itself  out  of  the  lower  ;  we  say  that  they  are  as  they 
are  because  God  created  them  in  series  ;  and  for  our  belief  in 
creation  we  have  all  the  reasons,  personal,  philosophic,  and 
historical,  which  we  have  for  receiving  the  Bible  as  the  Word 
of  God.  That  may  not  be  what  Prof.  Huxley  would  call 
scientific  evidence,  but,  such  as  it  is,  it  is  better  than  no  evi- 
dence at  all,  and  Prof.  Huxley  gives  us  none. 

For  his  argument  rests  on  a  conjecture,  and  so  it  violates 
the  first  of  the  two  canons  regulating  circumstantial  evi- 
dence. His  conclusion  is  thus  a  hypothesis  evolved  from  a 
hypothesis.  To  see  that  this  is  indeed  the  case,  let  us  put 
his  argument  in  syllogistic  form.  It  is  as  follows  :  Wherever 
we  have  an  ascending  series  of  animals  with  modifications  of 
structure  rising  one  above  another,  the  later  forms  must 
have  evolved  themselves  from  the  earlier.  In  the  case  of 
these  fossil  horses  we  have  such  a  series,  therefore  the  theory 
of  evolution  is  established  universally  for  all  organized  and 
animal  life.  Now  even  if  we  admit  his  premises,  every  one 
must  see  that  the  conclusion  is  far  too  sweeping.  It  ought 
to  have  been  confined  to  the  horses  of  which  he  was  treat- 
ing. But  passing  that,  let  us  ask  where  is  the  proof  of  the 
major  premise  ?  Indeed  that  premise  is  suppressed  alto- 
gether, and  he  nowhere  attempts  to  show  that  the  existence 
of  an  ascending  series  of  animals,  with  modifications  of  struct- 
ure rising  one  above  another,  is  an  mfallzble  indicatio^t  that 
the  higher  members  of  the  series  evolved  themselves  out  of 
the  lower.  There,  in  the  suppressed  premise,  in  which  Whately 
cautions  us  to  look  most  warily  after  fallacy,  the  flaw  in  Hux- 
ley's reasoning  is  to  be  found.  He  has  taken  for  granted  in 
the  major  premise  of  his  argument,  which  is  conveniently 
out  of  sight,  the  very  thing  which,  amid  a  great  flourish  of 
trumpets,  he  set  out  to  demonstrate.  Nobody  denies  the 
existence  of  the  fossil  horses,  but  his  inference  from  their 


240  APPENDIX.— NOTE  A. 

existence,  to  the  effect  that  the  later  horse  is  an  evolution  of 
the  earlier  anchitheriiim,  is  purely  and  entirely  begged.  The 
existence  of  a  series  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  higher  members  of  it  from  the  lower.  The  steps 
of  a  stair  rise  up  one  above  another,  but  we  cannot  reason 
that  therefore  the  whole  staircase  has  developed  itself  out  of 
the  lowest  step.  It  may  be  possible  to  arrange  all  the  differ- 
ent modifications  of  the  steam-engine,  from  its  first  and 
crudest  form  up  to  its  latest  and  most  completely  organized 
structure,  in  regular  gradation  ;  but  that  would  not  prove 
that  the  last  grew  out  of  the  first.  No  doubt  in  such  a  case 
there  has  been  progress — no  doubt  there  has  been  develop- 
ment too — but  it  was  progress  guided  and  development  di- 
rected by  a  presiditig  and  mtervem'ng  mind.  And  nowhere  in 
all  the  existing  order  of  things  will  you  find  modifications 
increasing  and  perpetuating  themselves  except  under  the 
inter^^ention  of  some  intelligent  mind.  Therefore  all  present 
experience  is  against  this  major  premise  which  Huxley  has 
so  quietly  taken  for  granted.  It  is  a  pure  conjecture.  I  will 
go  so  far  as  to  say  that  even  if  he  should  find  in  the  geologic 
records  all  the  intervening  forms  he  desires,  these  will  not 
furnish  evidence  that  the  higher  members  of  the  series  rose 
out  of  the  lower  by  a  process  of  evolution.  The  existence  of 
a  graduated  series  is  one  thing  ;  the  growth  of  the  series  out 
of  its  lowest  member  is  quite  another.  No  doubt  if  it  could 
be  proved  that  there  was  such  a  growth,  we  should  certainly 
find  such  a  series  ;  but  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that,  be- 
cause of  that,  the  existence  of  the  series  has  proved  that 
there  was  a  growth.  This  being  the  case,  the  argument  of 
Huxley  is  something  very  different  from  a  demonstration — 
to  wit,  a  fallacy. 

Indeed,  to  affirm,  as  he  did,  that  evolution  stands  exactly 
on  the  same  basis  as  the  Copernican  theory  of  the  motions 
of  the  heavenly  bodies,  is  an  assertion  so  astounding  that  we 
can  only  "  stand  by  and  admire  "  the  "  marvellous  "  effront- 
ery with  which  it  was  made.  That  theory  rests  on  facts 
presently  occurring  before  our  eyes,  investigated  and  rea- 
soned from  with  strictest  mathematical  precision.     It  is  not 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  A.  24 1 

an  inference  made  by  somebody,  from  a  record  of  facts  exist- 
ing in  far-off  and  prehistoric,  possibly  also  prehuman,  ages. 
It  is  verified  every  day  by  occurrences  that  happen  according 
to  its  laws.  But  where  do  we  see  evolution  going  on  to-day  ? 
If  evolution  rests  on  a  basis  as  sure  as  astronomy,  why  do  we 
not  see  one  species  passing  into  another  now,  even  as  we  see 
the  motions  of  the  planets  through  the  heavens  }  Why  can- 
not its  votaries  foretell  that  at  a  certain  time,  and  in  a  cer- 
tain place,  not  too  far  for  personal  inspection  by  us,  some 
modification  in  the  structure  of  an  animal  or  a  plant  shall 
occur,  without  any  human  intervention,  even  as  atronomers 
predict  the  occurrence  of  a  transit  of  Venus  across  the  sun  ? 

We  know  that  astronomy  is  true,  because  we  are  verifying 
its  conclusions  every  day  of  our  lives,  on  land  and  on  sea.  We 
set  our  clocks  according  to  its  conclusions,  and  navigate  our 
ships  in  accordance  with  its  predictions  ;  but  where  have  we 
anything  approaching  even  infinitesimally  to  this,  with  evolu- 
tion ?  It  may  be  that  there  is  truth  in  it ;  and  whenever  that 
shall  be  made  clear  to  us,  we  are  ready  to  accept  it.  But, 
with  Prof.  Huxley  himself,  "we  have  an  awkward  habit — no^ 
I  won't  call  it  that,  for  it  is  a  valuable  habit — of  reasoning,  so 
that  we  believe  nothing  unless  there  is  evidence  for  it,  and  we 
have  a  way  of  looking  upon  belief  which  is  not  based  on  evidence, 
not  only  as  illogical,  but  immoral."  The  professor  is  welcome 
to  the  application  of  his  own  principle.  For  me,  the  demon- 
stration of  Huxley,  so  far  as  it  has  been  set  before  us  here,  is 
of  the  same  sort  as  the  conjecture  of  Topsy,  "  'spects  I 
growed."  It  is  after  all,  despite  the  words  he  has  multiplied 
around  it,  the  "  'spects  "  of  Huxley.  As  such  it  is  worthy  of 
respect — just  as  any  opinion  or  conjecture  of  such  a  man 
must  have  a  certain  degree  of  importance — but  as  a  demon- 
stration it  is  an  imposition,  which  we  have  done  our  best  to 
nail  to  the  counter,  that  it  may  not  get  into  currency. 

I  am,  yours  faithfully, 

Wm.  M.  Taylor. 
New  York,  Oct.  11,  1876. 


242 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  B. 


NOTE  B.— Page  23. 

The  essay  of  Dr.  Mozley,  from  which  the  citations  in  the 
Lecture  are  taken,  is  the  most  Butlerian  piece  of  reasoning 
which  the  present  century  has  produced.  We  quote  here  the 
whole  passage  from  which  our  extracts  are  taken,  in  the  hope 
that  our  readers  may  be  induced  to  study  the  essay  as  a  whole : 

"  We  know  Mr.  Darwin's  own  account  of  natural  selection  ; 
and  from  this  very  account  it  allows  that  natural  selection  is 
not  an  agent  at  all,  but  a  result.  It  is  the  effect  which  pro- 
ceeds from  a  favorable  modification  or  development  of  struct- 
ure in  one  animal  in  the  struggle  for  existence  with  another 
animal  not  thus  additionally  endowed  ;  viz,  his  survivorship 
and  continuance  on  the  field  while  the  other  perishes.  There 
is  an  unknown  reservoir  and  spring  of  productiveness  in  nat- 
ure ;  and  some  improvement  or  augmentation  is  supposed 
to  have  come  out  of  it,  and  some  animal  to  have  been  the 
recipient  of  it ;  this  is  the  productive  agency  in  the  case. 
This  productive  agency  having  operated,  then  there  is  a  re- 
sult, in  the  particular  condition  of  scarcity  of  food  under 
which  animal  life  labors,  which  proceeds  from  it,  which  re- 
sult is  the  preservation  of  one  animal  and  the  death  of  an- 
other, or  natural  selection.  Natural  selection,  then,  is  not  an 
agent,  but  a  result ;  and  it  is  moreover  only  a  negative  or 
privitive  result. 

"  The  favored  party  in  this  struggle,  the  party  that  lives, 
would  have  lived  all  the  same  had  there  been  no  struggle  for 
existence,  and  no  natural  selection  ;  and  he  does  not  owe  his 
existence  and  continuance  to  natural  selection  ;  he  only  owes 
his  sole  existence  to  it,  as  distinguished  from  the  fate  of  a 
rival  who  perishes.  The  difference,  therefore,  which  natural 
selection  makes  is  not  that  one  of  these  animals  is  preserved, 
but  that  the  other  is  destroyed,  and  that  is  the  one  sole  re- 
sult in  natural  selection.  Had  the  supply  of  food  in  the 
world  been  infinite  and  inexhaustible,  both  of  these  animals 
would  have  lived,  for  both  would  have  had  enough  to  live 
upon  ;  but  the  supply  being  limited,  one  of  them  dies.  Natu- 
ral selection,  then,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  creation  of  any 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  B. 


HI 


favorable  addition  to  Nature  ;  it  is  only  the  removal  of  those 
who  do  not  possess  the  addition.  They  perish,  and  the  scene 
of  creation  thus  becomes  a  very  different  one  from  what  it 
would  have  been  had  there  been  no  natural  selection.  Could 
we  suppose  an  innumerable  and  inexhaustible  supply  of  nu- 
triment in  the  v/orld,  and  consequently  no  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, the  area  of  Nature  would  have  been  a  crowded  field  of 
irregular  as  well  as  regular  forms  of  animal  life ;  all  those 
wide  interstices  which  now  separate  species  from  species 
vrould  have  been  filled  up,  and  the  earth  would  have  teemed 
with  a  chaotic  rabble  of  animal  structures,  lower  forms  and 
higher,  perfect  species  and  imperfect ;  the  ascents  of  Nature 
being  almost  merged  and  lost  in  the  gradational  multitude  ; 
all  would  have  survived  because  there  was  food  for  all.  Natu- 
ral selection  clears  this  ground,  interposes  intervals,  and  ar- 
ranges Nature  into  groups  and  masses.  But  it  does  this  work, 
not  as  an  agent,  but  only  as  an  effect — the  destructive  effect 
of  the  scarcity  of  food.  Without  the  struggle  for  existence 
regular  forms  would  not  have  monopolized  the  ground — Nat- 
ure would  not  have  been  seen  upon  the  unencumbered 
pedestal  on  which  she  is  now,  or  presented  her  present 
structural  appearance.  But  natural  selection  only  weeds, 
and  does  not  plant ;  it  is  the  drain  of  Nature  carrying  off  the 
irregularities,  the  monstrosities,  the  abortions  ;  it  comes  in 
after  and  upon  the  active  developments  of  Nature  to  prune 
and  thin  them  ;  but  it  does  not  create  a  species,  it  does  not 
possess  one  productive  or  generative  function. 

"  Natural  selection  figures  in  language,  indeed,  as  an  active 
and  creative  power.  It  '  effects  improvement ; '  it  '  checks 
deviations  ; '  it  '  develops  structure  ; '  it  has  '  accumulative 
action;'  it  'works  silently  and  insensibly  wherever  oppor- 
tunity offers  ; '  it  has  made,  indeed,  every  organ  and  limb  of 
every  existing  animal.  The  species  are  its  workmanship; 
they  come  out  of  the  hands  of  this  great  artificer,  who  is  de- 
scribed as  fashioning  the  clay  of  life.  Natural  selection  is 
not  only  an  agent ;  it  is  even  a  designing  agent ;  it  '  acts  for 
the  good  of  each  creature  ; '  it  is  '  always  trying  to  econo- 
mize ; '  it  has  always  an  object  before  it  and  acts  with  an 


244  APPENDIX.— NOTE  B. 

aim.  But  all  this  is  only  the  phraseology  of  metaphor,  sum- 
ming up  and  condensing  consequences  under  the  figure  and 
impersonation  of  a  cause.  We  meet  an  effect  under  the  form 
of  a  cause,  as  we  meet  our  own  figure  in  a  shop  mirror  in  the 
street  departing  from  the  very  place  at  which  we  are  going 
to  arrive.  Upon  this  very  account  natural  selection  designs 
perfectly,  because  it  is,  in  fact,  itself  the  successful  result ;  it 
always  hits,  because  the  aimer  is,  in  truth,  the  mark ;  its  in- 
tention is  only  metamorphosed  fact.  We  have  to  carry  on 
this  interpretation  of  the  action  and  design  of  natural  selec- 
tion as  we  read  Mr.  Darwin  ;  and  though  we  by  no  means 
grudge  him  the  liberty  of  metaphor,  we  are  sometimes  con- 
scious of  an  exegetical  task  in  extracting  the  real  fact  out  of 
the  language  of  figure.  Natural  selection  is  superior  to  hu- 
man selection.  What  does  this  mean  }  That  one  is  a  better 
exercise  of  choice  than  the  other  ?  No ;  it  means  that 
whereas  human  selection  is  choice,  trial,  and  experiment, 
and  may,  therefore,  fail,  natural  selection  is  secure  because 
it  is  the  favorable  result  to  begin  with.  In  human  selection 
the  choice  aims  at  the  event ;  in  natural  selection  the  event 
makes  the  choice.  Natural  selection  endows  the  woodpeck- 
er with  its  instrument — '  a  striking  instance  of  adaptation  ' — 
/.  e.,  it  does  not  give  one  woodpecker  its  instrument ;  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  that ;  it  only  kills  off  another  woodpecker 
that  has  not  got  it.  Natural  selection  forms  the  flying  squir- 
rel with  its  parachute  ;  /.  e.,  it  makes  away  with  another 
squirrel  who  has  not  got  a  parachute  and  is  at  a  disadvan- 
tage in  the  locality.  Natural  selection  has  '  reduced  the 
wings  '  of  some  species  of  beetles  in  Madeira.  That  means 
that  those  species  which  had  reduced  or  shortened  wings 
were  naturally  selected  or  survived,  whereas  others  with  full 
wings,  by  reason  of  this  very  completeness  of  them,  perished, 
because  they  flew,  and,  flying,  flew  over  the  sea,  and,  flying 
over  the  sea,  got  carried  away  by  winds,  and  could  not  get 
back  again  to  land.  We  have  thus  to  commute  the  language 
of  natural  selection  as  fast  as  we  receive  it ;  to  drive  meta- 
phorically forward  and  really  backward  at  the  same  time,  and 
at  every  moment  to  transpose,  by  an  understanding  and  ar- 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  C. 


245 


rangement  with  ourselves,  the  cart  before  the  horse,  into  the 
natural  order  of  the  horse  first." — Essays  Historical  and  TheO" 
logical,  by  J,  B.  MozJey,  D.D.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  396-399. 


NOTE  C— Page  161. 

In  reference  to  the  Gospel  by  Matthew,  we  take  the  liberty 
of  quoting  here  a  section  from  a  little  volume  by  a  valued 
personal  friend,  in  which  the  whole  argument  is  compressed 
into  the  briefest  space  : 

"  We  affirm  that  the  canonical  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  could 
not  be  the  '  obscure  and  popular  elaboration  '  of  a  multitude 
of  writers,  or  be  the  result  of  an  intermixture,  accomplished 
in  equally  casual  and  multitudinous  manner,  of  two  familiar 
documents,  and  other  popular  traditions,  because  there  is  a 
unity  of  styl^  in  the  whole  Gospel,  which  imprints  on  every 
part  of  it  the  individual  stamp  of  its  author — which  reveals 
itself  in  charateristic  idioms  and  in  favorite  turns  of  expres- 
sion, shot  like  finest  threads  inextricably  throughout  the  en- 
tire web  of  the  Gospel,  giving  a  specific  and  plainly  featured 
character,  an  inalienable  identity,  not  only  to  the  Gospel  as 
a  whole,  but  to  every  section  of  it  equally.  The  discourses 
and  the  narratives  are  written  in  the  same  hand.  The  first 
two  chapters,  whose  authenticity  is  sometimes  disputed,  bear 
the  impress  of  the  same  literary  mould  as  the  other  chapters 
of  the  Gospel :  so  that  M.  Renan's  theory  could  only  be  ac- 
cepted on  condition  of  the  astounding  miracle,  that  every 
one  of  the  thousands  who  in  divers  times  and  places  added 
the  sentences  and  paragraphs,  from  St.  Mark  or  elsewhere, 
which  make  up  the  present  compost,  either  possessed  con- 
genitally  the  precise  mental  habitudes  and  linguistic  pecu- 
liarities of  the  writer  of  the  Logia,  or  they  were  supernatu- 
rally  endowed  with  St.  Matthew's  most  original  and  almost 
eccentric  style,  whenever  they  lifted  a  pen  to  insert  a  word 
into  the  original  document  of  the  Logia  which  they  possessed. 
This  argument  is  not  vapid  rodomontade,  as  it  would  be  if 
we  did  not  exhibit  the  minute  subtle  idiomatic  harmonies 
and  larger  expressional  forms  which  pervade  this  Gospel,  in- 


246 


APPENDIX— NOTE  C. 


terlacing  it  into  an  organic  unity  by  a  network  as  fine  and 
strong  as  the  nervous  tissues  of  a  living  body. 

"  The  number  and  continuity  of  our  examples  place  our  ar- 
gument beyond  the  reach  of  cavil.  We  the  more  willingly 
reproduce  this  argument  in  something  like  its  full  force,  be- 
cause we  are  acquainted  with  no  English  work  in  which  it  is 
at  all  adequately  exhibited,  though  Westcott,  Norton,  Rob- 
erts ('  Discussions  of  the  Gospels  '),  and  most  of  our  commen- 
tators, present  fragments  of  the  evidence.  We  are  largely 
indebted  to  Gersdorf's  invaluable  work,  *  Beitrage  zur  Sprach- 
characteristik  der  Schriftsteller  des  N.  T. '  (Leipzig,  18 16), 
for  most  of  the  illustrations  we  array  as  evidence  to  prove 
that  St.  Matthew's  Gospel — as  we  have  it — was  incjubitably 
written  by  one  person  : 

"  '  I.  The  peculiar  idiomatic  form  of  expression  seen  in  Matt. 
i.  20  :  Tavra  6e  avTov  hOvftijOivrog,  f  JoD,  occurs  nine  times  at  least : 
— ii.  I  ;  ii.  13  ;  ii.  19 ;  ix.  18  ;  ix.  32  ;  xii.  46  ;  xvii.  5  ;  xxvi.  47  ; 
xxviii.  5.  The  word  'k^ov  occurs  often  in  the  New  Testament ; 
but  only  in  one  other  passage  does  it  follow  the  genitive 
absolute.  It  occurs  in  Matthew  fifty-three  times.  There  is 
a  similar  peculiarity  of  construction  in  the  use  of  l^ov,  which 
occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.     It  is  seen  in  ii. 

9  :  01  de,  aKovaavreg  tov  (^aaileQq^  ETzopEvdrjaav  koL  Idov.      For  this  USC 

of  Kal  ISov,  after  the  nominative  participle,  cf.  viii.  32-34  ;  xxvi. 
50,  51  ;  xxviii.  8,  9,  19,  20;  cf.  also,  iii.  16,  17  ;  ix.  i,  2,  19,  20; 
xii.  9,  10 ;  XV.  21,  22  ;  xix.  15,  16  ;  xxvii.  50,  51.  There  is  still 
another  construction  of  Kal  Idov,  which  is  proper  to  this  Gos- 
pel, and  found  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which 

it  follows  the  dative  participle  :  Kat  efi3dv-L  avrcJ — rjKolovdrjaav — 
al  l6ov:  viii.  23,  24,  28,  29  ;  xxviii.  i. 

" '  2.  In  the  first  Gospel  the  adverb  ovrug  is  always  placed 
before  the  verb  :  ovrug rp-.  i.  18  ;  ii.  5  ;  iii.  15  ;  v.  12,  16  ;  vi.  9, 
30 ;  etc.,  etc.  In  the  other  Gospels  it  is  placed  sometimes 
before,  sometimes  after. 

" '  3.  There  is  a  very  frequent  form  in  Matthew,  nayoi 
irapeyivovTo  leyovreg:  ii.  i  ;  cf,  ii.  20 ;  iii.  I  ;  iii.  IJ  ;  viii.  5  ;  ix. 
18  ;  xiii.  36  ;  xiv.  15,  etc.,  etc.  Now  Luke  and  Mark,  on  the 
contrary,  always  add  avrc^  or  avrolg. 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  C.  247 

" '  4.  This  style  of  phrase,  m\  Trefiipag^  elire^  cf.  xi.  2,  3  ;  xiv. 
10;  xxii.  7,  and  -JTopevdevr eg  judders,  ix.  13  ;  xi.  4  ;  xvii.  27;  xxi. 
6  ;  xxii.  1 5,  etc.,  etc.,  is  quite  characteristic  of  Matthew.  The 
first  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  second  very 
rarely  in  Luke,  and  but  once  in  Mark.  (It  may  be  observed, 
indeed,  that  there  are  more  of  these  nice  points  of  agreement 
between  Matthew  and  Luke  than  between  Matthew  and  Mark, 
which  are  yet  supposed  to  be  only  different  mixtures  of  the 
same  elements). 

"  *  5.  Aieyepdelg  uirb  tov  vttvov,  i.  24 ;  c/.  xiv.  2  ;  xxvii.  64  ;  xxviii. 
7.  All  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use  the  prep- 
osition f/c  with  this  verb.  The  expression,  nar'  6vap,  is  equally- 
peculiar  to  this  Gospel. 

"  '  6.  The  adverb  rore  occurs  ninety  times  in  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  It  occurs  only  six  times  in  Mark,  and  fourteen 
times  in  Luke.  ^(I>6dpa  is  very  frequent  in  the  first  Gospel, 
and  is  always  placed  after  the  verb.  It  occurs  only  once  in 
Mark  (xvi.  4)  and  once  in  Luke  (xviii.  23). 

" '  7.  'AvExo)pT]aav  occurs  once  in  Mark  (iii.  7)  with  the  prep- 
osition TTpoc  Luke  never  uses  it.  It  appears  ten  times  in 
Matthew,  and  always  with  the  preposition  elg. 

"  '  We  have  not  nearly  ended  this  catalogue,  but  must  stop. 
The  phrase  ^  (3aai2.eia  ruv  ovpavuv  is  repeated  thirty-two  times 
throughout  every  section  of  this  Gospel,  in  discourses  and 
narratives  alike.  It  appears  nowhere  in  Mark  or  Luke.  In 
Matthew  the  peculiar  idiom,  Iva  TrAr^podtj  rh  p?/Oiv,  or,  rovro  blov 
6e  yiyovev  Iva,  proclaims  the  application  and  fulfilment  of  a 
prophetic  passage,  but  only  in  this  Gospel.  Many  other 
words  and  phrases,  such  as  6  TtovrjpSg,  aw-eleia  tov  aluvog, 
avfijiovT^iov  ?ia/u,(3dvecv,  [ladrjreveiv,  are  peculiar  to  Matthew,  and 
occur  several  times  in  different  parts  of  his  Gospel.  And 
the  expression,  vlog  Aajdld,  is  likewise  characteristic  of  it,  oc- 
curring in  i.  20  ;  ix.  27  ;  xii.  23  ;  xv.  22  ;  xx.  30,  31,  etc.  ;  occur- 
ring accordingly  in  all  parts  of  it,  whilst  it  occurs  but  rarely 
in  Mark  and  Luke. 

"  *  As  corroborative  evidence,  we  remark,  the  Latinized 
forms  occurring  in  this  Gospel,  such  as  KoSpavrr/v  (v.  26),  for 
the  Latin  quadrans,  (ppaye?26o,  for  Latin  fiagello  (xxvii.  26), 


J48 


APPENDIX.— NOTES  D.  AND  E. 


etc.,  indicate  one  hand  in  the  composition  of  the  Gospel ; 
and,  further,  that  it  came  from  the  hand  of  Matthew. 
"  When,"  as  Dr.  Davidson  says  ("  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,"  i.,  56),  "  it  is  remembered  that  Matthew,  as  a 
tax-gatherer  for  the  Roman  government,  must  have  come 
into  contact,  by  the  very  nature  of  his  office,  with  persons 
using  the  Latin  language,  these  Latinisms  are  accounted 
for."  '  " — A  Review  of  the  Vie  de  Jesus  of  M.  Renan,  by  J.  B. 
Pat  on,  M.A.,  Principal  of  N'ottingkam  Training  Institute^ 
England,  pp.  95-58. 


NOTE  D.— Page  212. 

Not  until  after  this  Lecture  was  written  could  I  lay  my 
hands  on  Canon  Westcott's  little  work  entitled  "  Character- 
istics of  the  Gospel  Miracles,"  in  which  with  his  accustomed 
thoroughness  that  excellent  scholar  views  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  as  in  themselves  an  Epiphany,  classifying  them  under 
the  heads  of  Miracles  of  Power,  Miracles  of  Providence, 
Miracles  of  Healing,  and  Miracles  on  the  Spirit  World.  Be- 
fore attempting  to  deal  with  this  department  of  the  subject, 
I  sought  with  great  diligence  for  Dr.  Westcott's  volume,  but 
was  everywhere  met  with  the  answer,  "  out  of  print ;"  and 
now  that  I  have  had  the  opportunity  of  examining  it,  I  find, 
to  my  great  satisfaction,  that  I  have  been  led  for  myself  into 
some  trains  of  thought  quite  similar  to  those  which  he  pur- 
sues. Such  a  book  should  not,  surely,  be  suffered  to  become 
inaccessible  to  the  students  of  to-day,  and  a  new  edition  of  it 
would  be  a  great  boon. 


NOTE   E.— Page  218. 

In  this  connection  what  Westcott,  in  the  work  referred  to 
in  the  last  note,  says  in  regard  to  the  miracles  of  healing 
is  equally  applicable  to  these  miracles,  as  he  calls  them,  of 
providence.  "  They  are  presented  to  us  as  a  revelation  of 
hope,  of  restoration,  of  forgiveness ;  of  hope,  as  wrought  in 


APPENDIX.— NOTE  E. 


249 


an  age  of  signal  distress  ;  of  restoration,  in  the  universality 
of  their  extent ;  of  forgiveness,  in  the  spiritual  antetypes  of 
their  working.  And  if  v/e  take  this  larger  view  of  their  essen- 
tial nature,  I  do  not  see  how  wc  can  conceive  of  a  Divine 
Saviour  v/ithout  such  deeds  of  love.  A  gospel  without  mira- 
cles would  be,  if  I  may  use  the  image,  like  a  church  without 
sacraments.  The  outward  pledge  of  the  spiritual  gift  would 
be  wanting.  Teaching  and  example  would  remain,  but  faith 
would  find  no  way  opened  to  *  the  world  to  come.'  " — Charac- 
teristics of  the  Gospel  Miracles,  pp.  43,  44. 


"  Since  Br.  James  Alexander'' s  posthumous  'Tboughts  on  Preaching,'  ttusli 
nas  not  appeared  a  hook  on  homiletics  no  full  of  wise  advice.  Oolden  maxims  art 
every w?iere.^^ — Scribner's  Monthly. 


THE  MINISTRY  OF  THE  WORD.  By  Wm.  M. 
Taylor,  D.D.,  Minister  of  the  Broadway  Tabernacle, 
New  York  City. 

*'  We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  no  volume  on  homiletics,  or  sacred 
rhetoric,  conveys,  within  an  equal  space,  and  in  a  style  so  clear  and  forcible, 
80  much  profitable  instruction  on  the  matter  and  manner,  preparation,  and 
delivery  of  sermons. 

"  It  has  the  great  advantage  of  coming  from  one  who  has  no  superior,  acd 
few  peers,  among  us  as  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel.  He  has  the  great  advantage, 
too,  of  knowing  himself  and  the  sources  of  his  power.  He  also  understands 
those  sources  of  pulpit  power  which  are  accessible  to  the  average  preacher. 
as  well  as  those  which  are  specially  so  to  the  more  gifted.  He  gives  the  ideal 
of  effective  preaching,  and  the  most  facile  method  of  reaching  it.  The  com- 
parative merits  of  topical  and  expository  discourses,  and  the  best  methods  of 
success  in  each,  are  well  set  forth. 

"  The  suggestions  in  regard  to  illustration  and  ornament  are  exceedingly 
jus":  and  v.^luable.  His  description  of  the  manner  in  which  he  himself  ac- 
quired the  power  of  enriching  his  discourses  with  fresh  metaphors  and  visid 
illustrations,  after  having  formed  the  habit  in  his  early  ministry  of  sermoniz- 
ing without  the  help  of  such  imagery,  is  worth  the  study  of  all  preachers, 
young  and  old,  whose  discourses  now  shed  only  the  diy  light  of  logic,  and 
show  too  much  the  pallor  and  thinness  of  cadaverous  abstractions, 

"  The  book  is  from  first  to  last  an  exhibition  of  the  most  effective  ways  and 
means  of  preaching  the  Word  and  commending  the  truth  to  every  man's  con- 
science in  the  sight  of  God." — Fres.  Quar.  and  Princeton  Review. 

"It  is  a  Wiorougixly practical  book  ;  one  of  the  most  so,  in  our  judgment, 
of  all  this  class  of  helps,  and,  therefore,  one  of  the  very  best  of  them.  It 
teaches  by  example.  *  *  *  Everywhere  unity  of  purpose,  directness  of  aim, 
ready  knowledge  of  Scriptural  and  secular  history,  and  of  classic  writers, 
ancient  and  modem  ;  command  of  terse,  vigorous,  graphic  English  ;  unrivalled 
aptness  of  illustration  ;  the  ligt-t  of  a  lambent  humor  gilding  all ;  and,  better 
still,  the  fervor  of  faith  and  love,  lifting  and  bearing  on  the  burden  of  eac>i 
successive  theme  to  its  noblest  uses  ;  these  reveal  the  wise  discerner  of  licarts, 
and  of  ways  to  win  them  ;  the  consummate  master  of  '  the  art  of  putting 
things.'  " — Congregationalist. 

"  The  Lectures  are  likely  to  prove  of  more  practical  service  than  those  of 
either  of  the  other  eminent  lecturers  at  Yale." — Scribner^s  Monthly. 

"  We  can  hardly  imagine  any  preacher  to  be  so  far  advanced  in  his  ministry 
as  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  usefulness  from  the  hints  in  this  book." — JV.  i. 
Obsei'ver. 

"There  is,  underlying  all  his  suggestions,  a  clear  recognition  of  the  pur 
pose  of  preaching,  as  God's  means  for  the  conversion  and  spiritual  edifica- 
tion of  men." — The  Churchman. 

"  We  commend  the  work  to  2ill."—Eva7igelist. 

"  Will  be  found  no  less  entertaining  to  the  general  reader  than  it  i.-«  instruc- 
tive to  the  professional  student." — N.  T.  Tribune. 

One  handsome  volume,  323  pagres,  12mo,  Cloth.    Price,  $1.50. 

ilnson  D.  F.  Randolph  &  Company,  900  Broadway,  New  York. 

*^*  Sent  by  mail,  post  free,  on  receipt  of  price  by  the  Publishers. 


TEE  PILQRIJli  FSALMS. 

AN 

EXPOSITION  OF  THE  SONGS  OF  DEGREES. 

BY  THE 

'El'Br^.  S.A.lvfl:XJEL    C03Z, 

WITH  AN   INTRODUCTION   BY 

REV.  MARVIN  R.   VINCENT,  D.D.,  NEW  YORK. 


A  rare  acd  precions  book.  The  exposition  is  fully  abreast  of  the  times, 
tccurate  and  clear,  with  no  parade  of  critical  learning^.  It  is  scholarly  with- 
out pedantrj^,  epiritnal  without  cant,  and  delightful  without  cloying.  The 
Pijalms  are  given  in  an  excellent  and  elegant  translation,  whic  i.  however,  is 
rather  aiter  the  author's  own  spirit,  than  i  \  a  catholic  and  c  ^  orless  style, 
and  is  rather  the  better  for  it.  The  sense  of  the  authorizod  version  is  never 
departed  from  without  good  reason.  The  style  of  writing  is  especially 
charming.— /S.  ^S^.  Times. 

The  Psalms  (120  to  134)  which  are  known  to  us  as  "Sones  of  Degrees" 
form  as  it  were  a  little  book  by  themselves.  The  author  regards  them,  with 
most  commentators,  as  songs  sung  by  the  Hebrews  in  their  journeys  to 
Jerusalem  to  attend  the  feasts.  If  the  author's  congregation  did  not  listen 
with  delight  to  these  charming  expositions  it  must  be  a  congregation  of 
strange  dullness.  Each  one  is  the  work  of  an  artist,  and  coutaius  a  transla- 
tion of  the  Psalm,  a  sketch  of  the  time  and  the  scenes  in  which  it  was  probably 
composed,  a  sympathetic  and  skillful  exposition,  and  an  explanation  of  its 
fitness,  etc.  The  style  is  not  only  beautiful,  but  delicately  adapted  to  the 
spirit  of  the  songs  with  which  the  author  is  dealing.  We  heartily  commend 
the  volume.— TVie  Watchman  (Boston). 

Mr.  Cox's  work  will,  we  venture  to  say,  open  up  to  many  of  his  readers, 
truths  which  they  never  saw  before.  He  gives  the  results  of  a  sound  scholar- 
ship, and  ttie  fruits  of  a  rich  imagination,  one  which  has  ripened  into,"»"er- 
ence.    We  commend  this  book  to  &\\.—  The  Churchman  (N.  Y.) 

To  most  persons,  exposiliun  is  as  dry  as  a  dictionary,  but  we  venture  to 
fay  that  whoever  will  give  one  or  two  of  his  best  Sunday  hours  to  the  "  Hlgrim 
ppalms,"  will  find  it  one  of  the  juiciest  he  ever  read,  and  as  sweet  a  one  too. 
The  author  throws  a  wonderful  light  on  the  '•  Song<,"  but  better  than  this  ia 
the  light  which  he  makes  them  throw  on  us  and  our  i\mQ.s,.—Eeiigious  nevoid 
(Richmond). 

Full  of  the  treasures  of  Christian  experience.— Christian  at  Work. 

Can  not  fail  to  be  of  service  to  every  thoughtful  and  devout  reader.— 
Conffregaiionaliat. 

Scholarly  and  at  the  same  time  popular Even  the  titles  which  the 

author  places  over  the  chapters  are  at  once  beautiful  and  appropriate— thus, 
"The.^oug  of  the  Start,"  "  The  Song  of  the  Arrival,"  "  The  Song  of  the 
Home,"  followed  by  "  The  Song  of  ths  Farm.''''— Christian  Intelligencer. 

12mo,   Cloth.     $1 

ANSON  D.  F.  RANDOLPH  &  COMPANY, 

900  Broadway,  Cor.  20th  St.,  New  York. 

May  be  obtained  of  the  Booksellers,  or  will  be  sent  by  mail,  post-paid,  »■ 
«ceipt  of  the  price,  by  the  Publishers. 


Tiie  Historic  Origin  of  the  Bible. 

A  Haisd-BouK  of  Principal  Facts,  from  the  best  recent  authorr 
I  es,  German  and  English.  In  three  Parts,  complete  in  One  Volume. 
h'art  /.—The  English  Bible.  Part  //.—The  New  Testament.  Pari 
///.—The  Old  Testament.  With  Appendices:  /. — Leading  Opiniona 
on  Revision.  //. — On  the  Apocrypha.  By  Rev.  Edwakd  Conk 
BissELL.  A.M.  With  an  Introduction  by  Prof.  Roswell  D.  Hitch 
COCK,  D.D.,  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  N.Y.    One  vol.,  small 

8vo,  4?>5  pp.  $2.00. 

»  ♦  » 

Vlease  Mend  this  Description  of  the  lioo/c. 

This  w  a  complete  manxuil  of  Biblical  Introduction.  It  covers  ground  lever  before 
covered  hy  any  one  volume.  While  giving,  iti  a  compact  and  practicable  form,  the  gist 
of  such  important  treatises  as  those  of  Bleek,  Keil,  lieuss,  Credner,  and  De  Wette,  on  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  it  contains  also  a  fresh  and  critical  history  of  the  English 
Bible,  together  icith  an  erceediJigly  valuable  Ajypendix  of  fifty  closely  2^rinted  pages,  <yn 
tlic  subject  of  revision.  This  Appendix  fwiiislies,  in  tJieir  own  language,  the  leadiiig pin- 
ions of  Christian  scholars  in  England  and  Amanca,  both  for  and  against  revision.  WhiU 
ihowing  the  more  important  defects  of  our  versimi,  on  which  the  j)lea  for  such  a  work  is 
based,  it  bnngs  doivn  to  date  the  histo)vj  of  the  recent  movement  uiulertaken  by  the  Cwivo- 
caiion  of  Canterbury,  and  thus  puts  the  general  reader  in  possession  of  all  needful  facts  for 
an  e?dighte7ied  jiulgment  respecting  its  feasibility  and  exj)ediency.  The  whole  work  has  been 
vcritten  with  extreme  care.  Buring  its  jirejmration,  or  rvhile  goiy^g  through  the  press,  it  has 
passed  under  the  eye  of  some  of  our  most  eminent  Biblical  scholars,  who  have  expressed 
tlieir  gratification  both  with  the  general  2>lan  of  the  treatise,  and  its  execidioti.  While  it 
is  a  b(X)k  that  might  be  expected  to  find  a  welcome  place  on  the  table  of  the  minister  and 
tfieolo(fical  studeid,  it  is  also  particularly  adapted  to  the  quants  of  Suruiay- School  teachers^ 
and  is  written  in  a  style  easily  comprehensible  by  all  intelligent  readers  of  t/ie  Bible, 

From  the  Rev.  WILLIAM  S.  TYLER,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Williston  Professor  of  the  Greek  Lang-uage  and  Literature,  Amherst  Colletre, 
"  My  examiuatlon  conflrras  me  in  my  opiuion,  formed  from  a  cursory  examination  of  tho 
manoscripl,  of  the  great  value  and  merits  of  the  hook.  It  covers  a  very  wide  field  ;  much  of 
it  hitherto  acccKsible  only  to  scholars,  but  all  of  great  interest  and  importance  to  every  reader 
of  the  Scriptures.  It  meet?  a  want  widely  felt  by  the  intellif^eut  Christian  pnhlic,  hf  answerina 
In  a  clear  and  satisfactory  manner,  a  multitude  of  questions  which  they  have  hitherto  had 
DO  means  of  answering.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  so  much  accuracy,  thoruutrhnoes,  patience, 
and  conocieiitiousaess  in  the  investigation  and  treatment  of  the  subject,  that  the  book  is  en- 
titled to  a  high  tank  among  the  helps  of  educTtcu  men,  ministers,  and  biblical  scholars.  Tho 
remarkable  candor  and  fairness  of  the  b.'  i>.  is  among  its  chief  recommendations.  The  authoi 
'secke  only  to  ascertain  the  truth,  noi  to  establish  a  theory,  or  support  a  tradition." 

ix\SO>'  I).  F.  RANDOLPH  &  CO.,  900  Broadway,  cor.  20lh  Street,  N.  Y. 
Sent  by  mail,  prepaid,  on  receipt  of  tlie  price*  $2.00. 


TTie  Christian  at  Work  says: 
*'No  intelligent  or  ordinarily  careful  reader  of  the  book  can  fail  to  nnderstand  what 
manner  of  man  Whitbpield  was,  and  what  were  the  general  features  of  the  work 
he  did."  

LIFE  OF  GEORGE  WHITEFIELD. 

BY  REV.   L.  TYERMAN. 

2  Vols.,  8vo,  Cloth.     Price,  NET,  Per  Set,        -        -       -       $4,00. 


Geobse  Whitepield  was  pre-eminently  the  outdoor  preacher— the  most  popnlar 

evangelist  of  the  age.  A  revivalist,  who,  with  unequalled  eloquence  and  power,  spent 
above  thirty  years  in  testifying  to  enormous  crowds,  in  Great  Britain  and  America,  the 
Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  Practically,  he  belonged  to  no  denomination  of  Christians, 
but  was  the  friend  of  all.  His  labors,  popularity,  and  success  were  marvellous,  perhaps 
unparalleled.  All  churches  in  England,  Scotland,  Wales,  and  America  were  permanently 
benefited  by  his  piety,  his  example,  and  the  few  great  truths  which  he  continually 
preached.    The  world  has  a  right  to  know  all  that  can  be  told  of  such  a  man. 

Dr.  TyermarCfi  Note, 

"To  say  nothing  of  almost  innumerable  sketches,  at  least  half  a  dozen  lives  of 
Whitkpield  have  already  been  published.  If  the  reader  asks  why  I  have  dared  to  add 
to  the  number  of  these  biographies,  I  answer:  "  Because  I  posse>»sed  a  large  amount  of 
biographical  material  which  previous  biographers  had  not  employed,  and  much  of  whicli 
seems  to  have  been  unknown  to  them. 

''  With  the  exception  of  a  few  instances,  my  facts  are  taken  from  original  sources, 
and  I  believe  there  is  now  no  information  concerning  Whitepield,  of  any  public  im- 
portance, which  is  not  contained  in  the  present  volumes.  ...  I  have,  as  far  as 
possible,  acted  upon  the  principle  of  making  Whitepield  his  own  biographer. 

"  Whitepield's  power  was  not  in  his  talents,  nor  even  in  his  oratory,  but  in  his 
piety.  In  some  respects  he  has  had  no  successors;  but  in  prayer,  in  faith,  in  religious 
experience,  in  devotedness  to  God,  and  in  a  bold,  steadfast  declaration  of  the  few  grca  t 
Christian  truths— which  aroused  the  churches— he  may  have  many." 

The  Scotsman  (Edinburgh)  says  : 

"  Mr.  Tyerman  unquestionably  possesses  in  a  pecnliar  degree  some  of  the  essential 
qualifications  for  such  a  v/ork.  The  study  and  research  necessary  for  the  production  of 
his  previous  books  have  given  him  a  very  thorough  knowledge  of  the  great  revival  of 
religious  feeling  in  England,  and  an  acquaintance  with  the  religious  society  and  litera- 
ture of  the  time  at  once  extensive  and  minute." 

In  the  hope  of  obtaining  a  wider  circulation  for  this  worJby  the  Publishers,  while  issuing 
it  In  good  style,  have  made  the  price  ve?^  reasonable. 

PUBLISHED  BY 

ANSON    D.    F.    RANDOLPH    &    CO., 

900  Broadway,  Cor.  SOth  Street,  New  York. 
♦«*  Sent  by  mall,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  the  price. 


CTxrist  Itis  ®von  WUdnzss, 


All  that  Jesus  said  Concerning  Himself  Topically 
A  rranged  and  Studied. 

BY  THE 

Rev.    E.    BALLANTINE, 
Professor  of  Greek  in  Indiana   Utiiversity, 


In  the  present  general  study  of  the  character  and  history  ot  the 
Author  of  Christianity,  it  seems  but  appropriate  that  JESUS'  OWN 
TESTIMONY  RESPECTING  HIMSELF  be  allowed  an  important 
place,  as  being  fundamental  to  the  argument.  This  volume  is  de- 
signed to  present  in  full  ALL  of  the  received  sayings  of  Jesus  in 
which  He  refers  to  Himself,  arranged  with  reference  to  the  points  on 
which  they  bear,  with  remarks  attached  designed  to  show  the  mean- 
ing, and  to  present  clearly  the  summary  of  their  testimony.  The 
volume  has  a  complete  Index  of  Texts. 


OPINIONS  IN  REGARD   TO   THE  WORK  FROM   THE  PRESS 
AND  FROM  INDIVIDUALS,  MINISTERS,  AND  OTHERS. 

From  the  Sunday-School  Times. 
The  book  is  a  useful  one. 

From  the  Interior  (Presbyterian),  Chicago. 

This  volume  has  grown  out  of  a  little  book  published  years  ago, 
and  is  incomparably  more  complete. 

From  the  Western  Eecorder  (Baptist),  Louisville. 

Much  of  the  comment  is  exceedingly  practical,  and  aims  to  get  at 
the  precise  thought  of  the  Saviour.  The  author  makes  some  good 
suggestions  on  the  knotty  passage — Mark  xiii.  32 ;  and  he  offers  a 
simple  and  very  reasonable  solution  of  the  difficulties  in  the  conver- 
sation of  Jesus  Christ  in  Matt.  xxiv.  On  the  whole,  the  book  will 
furnish  a  rich  feast  to  the  devout  mind. 

From  The  Presbyterian^  Philadelphia. 

We  consider  that  the  book  before  us  will  be  found  valuable,  not 
alone  for  present  reading,  but  for  reference. 


Ct"**  W»  ®fen  Wiitntss. 


From  TTie  Watchman  (Baptist). 

We  have  here  a  Christology  the  most  eligible  ;  for  the  Author  of  it 
"knew  what  was  in  man,"  and  knew  also  that  the  record  of  Himself 
•was  trae.  It  must  he  confessed  that  (the  writer)  marshals  the  testi- 
mony presented  with  consummate  skill.  The  book  is  eminently  wor- 
thy of  study  by  all  Christian  ministers,  and  especially  by  young  Chris 
tians,  whose  relations  with  the  world  bring  them  in  contact  with  per- 
sons of  a  skeptical  bias. 

From  The  Christiafi  Intelligencer  (Reformed  Chtjech). 
It  is  not  a  mere  compilation  of  texts,  but  these  are  accompanied  by 
exegetical  remarks  and  critical  notes,  which  give  greater  unity  of  plan 
and  more  light  upon  the  subjects  illustrated.  The  value  of  the  work 
is  not  merely  in  its  careful  collection  of  the  words  of  Christ,  but  sig- 
nally as  a  help  to  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  familiarizing  the  reader 
with  their  use,  and  making  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  His  own  biographer 
and  expoaitor.  It  can  not  but  be  mstructive  to  all  readers,  while  it 
may  enlighten  those  who,  though  in  doubt,  yet  wish  to  learn  just 
what  the  Master  said  of  Himself.  Such  books  will  convince  and 
satisfy  and  edify  thousands  of  inquiring  minds  which  can  not  be 
reached  by  scientific  theology,  and  are  not  satisfied  with  the  current 
dogmatic  statements  of  the  Christology  of  the  Bible. 

From  The  Chicrchman  (Episcopal). 

The  work  will  prove  very  useful  in  various  ways,  and  can  not  fail 
to  have  great  weight  with  all  those  who  study  it.  Those  who  have 
never  thus  classed  together  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  respecting  Him- 
self will  be  surprised  to  find  how  full  and  strong  they  are  on  every 
point  held  by  the  Church  respecting  His  person  and  work. 

From  the  Boston  Traveller. 
In  it  is  arranged  topically,  in  a  most  scholarly  as  well  as  devout  and 
careful  manner,  all  that  Jesus  said  concerning  Himself.  Such  a  work 
speaks  for  .tself ;  and  there  is  only  need  to  call  the  attention  of  Sun- 
day-school teachers,  of  students,  and  of  the  community  of  Christian 
people  to  the  book's  existence,  to  make  each  and  all  such  desire  it. 
The  work  will  be  found  an  eminently  valuable  one. 

From  the  New  York  Observer  (Presbyterian). 
It  is  quite  peculiar  enough  in  its  conception  and  treatment  to  justify 
its  appearance.  The  passages  (under  the  different  heads)  are  selected 
with  good  judgment,  and  the  bringing  together  of  Scriptures  thus 
selected  is  often  very  suggestive.  But  besides  this,  the  author  has 
frequently  subjoined  explanations  which  are  wise  and  helpful. 

From  The  United  Presbyterian. 
It  is  timely  and  will,  no  doubt,  be  received  with  special  interest  at 
this  time,  when  the  attention  of  the  whole  Christian  world  is  directed 
to  the  person  of  Christ,  and  it  is  destined  to  be  well-received  upon  its 
merits.  It  is  clear,  logical,  and  concise.  The  brevity  of  the  sections 
makes  it  enticing,  leading  the  mind  of  the  reader  on  swiftly  from  one 
important  and  striking  thought  to  another.  The  book  will  be 
especially  valuable  to  all  Bible  students,  classifying  and  grouping  as 


CtrfBt  J^fs  ©inn  ffiSSitnesB. 


It  does  all  that  Josus  says  of  Himself  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  the 
Intention  and  meaning  apparent  and  striking.  To  all  such  we  ear- 
nestly recommend  it. 

From  The  Daily  Indianapolis  Journal. 
"Christ  His  Own  Witness  "  is  a  new  book  l\y  the  Rev.  E.  Ballan- 
tine,  of  the  Indiana  University.  Recognizing  with  Christ  the  neces- 
sity of  testimony  as  the  foundation  of  a  rational  faith,  the  author  con- 
piles  the  Testimony  of  Jesus  concerning  Himself,  with  an  admirable 
exposition  of  the  same Christians  will  be  edified  and  strength- 
ened in  faith  by  its  perusal,  and  searchers  after  truth  will  find  in  it  the 
precious  treasure.  Parents,  teachers,  students,  and  ministers  will 
find  in  it  an  invaluable  help  in  their  labors  for  Christ  and  humanity. 
It  ought  to  be  in  every  library  throughout  the  land. 

From  The  New  York  Evangelist  (Presbtterian). 
A  thoroughly  studied  and  carefull}-  prepared  volume.  Students  of 
"  the  Life  "  scarcely  need  our  suggestion  of  the  special  worth  and  use 
of  this  tastefully -printed  work,  "Such  a  volume  prepared  by  one  who 
is  himself  a  devout  believer,  can  not  be  otherwise  than  instructive 
and  edifying  to  all  who  read  with  the  same  humble  and  teachable 
spirit. 

From  TJie  Examiner  arid  Chronicle  (Baptist),  New  York. 
The  book  shows  itself  to  be  a  labor  of  love  and  devotion.  Reflec- 
tions brief  and  pertinent  are  not  wanting,  and  occasional  notes  in  the 
maro-in  will  aid  the  critical  student.  Those  who  love  to  linger  over 
the  Life  of  our  Lord  wOl  lind  a  delightful  and  edifying  help  in  these 
pages. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  PRIVATE  LETTERS  AND  ARTICLES  WRIT- 
TEN FOR  PUBLICATION. 

From  PREsroENT  Moss,  Indiana  University,  to  the  Author. 

I  am  grateful  and  glad  that  your  studies  and  devout  meditations 
have  for  so  long  a  tiraie  been  in  this  direction,  and  that  you  now  per- 
mit others  to  share  in  that  which  has  been  so  richly  edifying  and  com- 
forting to  yourself.  It  is  a  precious  book -an  alabaster  box  of  oint- 
ment lovingly  broken.  May  its  perfume  be  widely  diffused,  and  give 
token  to  many  hearts  of  the  presence  and  grace  of  Him  in  honor  of 
Avhom  it  is  poured  forth. 

From  President  Tuttle,  Wabash  College  (in  an  Article). 

As  (the  reader)  passes  over  the  Syllabus,  and  then  examines  each 
separate  sa5'^iug  of  Jesus  in  relation  to  some  claim  He  was  making,  he 
is  filled  with  wonder.  No  candid  person  can  read  without  wonder 
the  fifteen  chapters  which  record  Christ's  own  words  about  Himself. 
To  me  it  seems  an  important  work  for  students  who  are  searching 
into  the  mysteries  of  "  the  Word,"  and  to  belie\«ers  who  need  spiritual 
food.  It  should  stand  on  the  student's  book-shelf  next  to  Robinson's 
Harmony,  and  both  should  be  most  carefully  studied.  As  the 
thoughtful  believer  reads  this  precious  volume  of  Prof.  B.,  I  think 
he  will  find  his  heart  aglow  with  veneration  and  love  for  "the 
Maste**  " 


ffifirtst  l^ts  ®fctT  Wiitntss. 


An  Editor  Says  in  a  Letter  : 
1  have  read  it  with  a  sense  of  personal  indebtedness  to  its  author.    • 

From  a  Pastor  of  a  Large  City  Church. 

1  thoroughly  enjoyed  the  beautiful  volume,  which  certainly  treats, 

as  you  suggest,  an  important  and  timely  theme.     It  seems  to  me,  too, 

tbat  your  discussion  of  the  subject  is  most  scholarly  and  complete.   I 

shall  be  glad  to  speak  of  the  book  to  my  friends  as  I  have  opportunity 

From  another  Active  Pastor  in  the  same  City. 
I  enjoy  your  book  very  much,  and  hope  to  profit  by  its  careful  and 
prayerful  perusal. 

From  the  Pastor  op  a  Leading  Church  in  another  City. 
I  can  see  that  it  will  meet  the  case  of  some  whom  I  know,  who  do 
not  now  admit  the  validity  of  Jesus'  claims. 

From  a  Pastor  in  Ohio. 
Your  book  fills  a  very  important  niche.  It  is  better  than  the  first 
edition,  as  it  reveals  to  the  reader  much  more  clearly  your  own  con- 
ception of  the  subject,  and  will  make  it  possible  for  most  miuds  to 
use  the  material  with  much  better  effect.  I  expect  to  make  great  use 
of  it  in  my  pulpit  preparations. 

From  the  Venerable  Dr.  Little,  of  Madison,  Indiana. 
Tou  can  not  tell  how  much  I  am  obliged  to  you  for  the  precious 
little  volume  you  sent  me.  As  soon  as  I  received  it  I  read  it  carefully 
through,  and  could  but  thank  the  Lord  for  putting  it  into  your  heart 
to  go  so  carefully  through  the  four  Gospels,  and  select  and  arrange 
under  so  appropriate  heads  those  wonderful  testimonials  which  Christ 
bore  of  Himself.  A  ver}''  large  proportion  of  our  people,  l<oth  in  and 
out  of  the  Church,  suppose  that  they  believe  the  Bible,  and  yet  h'^ve 
never  read  it  with  such  care  as  to  have  formed  their  opinions  of  Christ 
from  it,  but  they  derive  them  from  newspaper  articles  or  talks  of 
semi-skeptics,  so  that  they  have  not  the  true  inspired  Scriptural  \iew 
of  Chris*^^.  Your  book  is  just  in  time  for  men  of  this  class,  as  well  as 
to  strengthen  the  faith  and  hopes  of  true  believers,  and  comfort  and 
cheer  them  in  their  heavenly  way.  Just  at  this  time,  when  there  are 
such  tendencies  to  leave  the  true  Christ  out  of  the  system,  your  book 
should  be  in  every  family,  so  perfectly  arranged  that,  opening  any- 
where, we  see  Christ  presenting  Himself  in  His  true  light. 

The  book  was  recommended  strongly  to  the  attention  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  at  its  meet- 
ing last  May,  by  one  of  the  members,  and  his  recommendation  was 
seconded. 

12mo,  Cloth,  324  Pages, --_   Price,  $1.50 

ANSON    D.   F.   RANDOLPH   &   CO., 

900  Broadway,  Cor.  2oth  Street,  New  York. 

Se^i^   by  mail,  free  of  postage,   on   receipt  of  the  price. 


Princeton  Theological   Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01197  4880 


Date  Due 

^  'A       -4? 

U/-/7> 

^ 

